213374U

But it's against The Law!

This is a bit of, um, old news...

It was a false analogy. You were trying to assimilate my questioning of a poorly defined aphorism with questioning the substance and associated ethics of murder - a thinly veiled personal argument. That was dishonest. I didn't think it merited a serious response, so I took the rhetorical path. At that point there was no arguement to lose anymore. Depends. Looking just at the New Testament, it's "You shall not kill"/"You shall not murder", depending on translation. So killing another person is a no-no in all its forms. That's why it's not "defined"... it's an all-encompassing definition, and probably as close to a natural definition you can get. Not very good as a source of law, though. The Old Testament is much more fun, to be sure. Which one do you want to subscribe? It was a crime at the time he did it, so he should face the consequences, even if the law is changed further down the line. Simply because I reserve the right to break the law when I see fit doesn't mean I expect not to be prosecuted.

You're just trying to justify child rape!

Lol, stop being such a pathetic attention whore, Hades. Nobody cares. Order a mail bride already. Oh, ****. You got me there. WoD tried to paint me as the bad guy with a poorly built fallacy, and I just played along. Heh, if he had admitted to be quoting from his Bible, I would have had to accept it, as murder as defined in there is immutable. But if there was a natural definition for murder, there would be no need to codify it, no? Anyway, I think you are just playing hard to get. Why don't you tell us what you think (and not what you "know").

Thanks for the link, Gfted. Transcript is incomplete, though. And this, girls, is why you shouldn't smoke crack during a pregnancy. He could have been a Mozart or an Einstein! Nobody's trying to legitimize anything, Grom. There isn't a relativist approach, either. Just discussing the law and its foundations. What's your interest in this, anyway? Know something we don't?

I keep hearing this, but nobody actually knows (or wants to explain) what these are. That's only true in a very strict sense. Remove "according to society" from your statement, and it's plain wrong, actually. Legally they were not a man's equal, but inside the household the woman held power. Socially they were little more than a man's appendix, but relegating them exclusively to the role of baby-making machines is oversimplifying and dishonest. And of course, there's Ancient Egypt where men and women were absolute equals (legally and otherwise), and women were married at 14. I'm sure somebody more versed than me in ancient history could find more counterexamples. Yes, the older party is definitely going to exert a deciding influence on the relationship. But this often happens regardless of age, as well. It also doesn't work very well when talking about two same age minors going at it. So, basically what you are saying (by that and the other paragraph I didn't quote) is that laws are as they are to protect the development of women as individuals, from a personal and possibly academic perspective - unwanted pregnancies mean that a child is no longer a child. An unwanted pregnancy usually also means that the mother needs to quit what she's doing and tend to her baby. That I can understand, but it's far from the published rationale for age of consent legislation - and it doesn't work very well as birth control is readily available. It also may help explain the current population pyramids in developed countries and what they entail. Coming from you, I can't think of a greater compliment. On the other hand, I know a few guys that scored really early, and they are perfectly happy with their lives. Anecdotal evidence is a bitch, huh? Did you somehow miss my other posts in this thread where I: a) charge against a govt official who is openly against "Romanski" being prosecuted, and b) make it clear I'm not defending the man?

Didn't your mom teach you to shut up and go play in a corner when the grown-ups are talking? Hey, you are the one arguing for pedophilia. Hey man, you should thank me. People like me would make it easier for people like you to lose their virginity.

Hey, Grom! Having fun yet?

So we just accept whatever's written on a piece of paper as the ultimate truth and guiding light for our actions (until somebody comes along and rewrites the whole thing, that is)? Why are you trying so hard to mischaracterize me as defending statutory rape? That's NOT what I'm going on about. Care to try again, without the strawmen? While I have trouble swallowing this (I guess, following this, that Gfted1 must be horribly scarred from the experience, for one), I'm going to let it slide, and pose a question instead. Is this an impossibility in the same sense as "a human cannot survive in a vacuum", or just a result of how our children are reared and other cultural influences? During the Classical period, girls were bethrothed just after reaching sexual maturity, generally to older men. They were mature enough for maternity. There were many factors contributing to the collapse of the Roman Empire, but women marrying and becoming mothers while in their teens wasn't one of them. Does this even have any semblance of scientific rigour? Yes, the lawmakers need to tell me what murder is, because there's a lot involved in determining whether something is murder, manslaughter, or whatever. Not to mention the changing nature of those things being, as they are, legal details. Or are you quoting from your Bible, now? You may want to take a look at this, specifically the part where it talks about the disconnection between law and morality. Just a quick clarification, too: "subjective" does not mean "thoughtless". Hahaha. And, of course, you belong to the "civilized" group, right? It would be hilarious if you weren't serious. Didn't your mom teach you to shut up and go play in a corner when the grown-ups are talking?

Oh, crap. I just realized I had donned my "fight the power!" t-shirt. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Oh, has it? Well then. I feel so reassured, now. It's a good thing that legislators don't ever reverse changes by previous legislators and go back on old topics, and always tackle new issues and problems, right? Further, I am now going to switch my brain off. Given that I have my dear politicians to shape my opinions for me, I don't really need to waste glucose pointlessly - choosing which brand of toothpaste to purchase doesn't really require that much brainpower anyway. After all, it is the LAW and God forbid I question my betters. Gimme a break.

It sounds silly, but it could happen. I don't have a concrete answer either. Mostly because I can't wrap my mind around the idea of a single rule being valid for everyone, always. How old's your daughter, anyways? (cough) Funny. When the State ends the life of somebody, we say "it was JUSTICE". When I go and stab somebody then it's "murder". Or not. It depends on what the lawmakers at the time agree murder is, no? In principle I agree that you have to draw the line somewhere, but that is mostly completely disconnected from reality. It's just a matter of bureaucratic feasibility. So, please, tell me where you get this unwavering certainty from, that lets you see "pretty clearly" where the line needs to be drawn. Or I could be dishonest and assume you are just making stuff up as you go or quoting directly from your Bible.

My guess would be it's subtly hinting that you should seek qualified help. NOW.

I'm not disputing that. Laws come and go, though. Yes, and anyone should be able to see that the Earth is flat. Only, it isn't. A 13 yr old doesn't have the judgement required. How about a 14-and-a-day year old? How about a 17 year old? What exactly are you basing those frankly random statements on, other than anecdotal evidence and cultural indoctrination? I said it's "debatable" because "a child" can be about anything you want. You also don't explain why "a child" cannot give consent. This is, of course, tangential, as in this particular case, the victim did NOT consent. Mind you, I am NOT defending Polanski. It's just that these automatic value judgements rub me off the wrong way. No idea. Why don't you tell me? That's precisely what I meant by "debatable".

Debatable.

Gotta love it when asshats that fail to understand the basics of the rule of law get appointed to a cabinet. Happens all the time, too.

I don't like weighted pushups. But that's just me, my right shoulder likes to act up, and if I don't place my shoulder blades in a "lock" before pressing, my shoulder feels it. Rule of thumb goes, try it - if it hurts, don't do it. If you can manage to get the weight not to move at all while you do the exercise, you should be fine. Just watch your form, don't allow your lower back to relax. What are you asking about back exercises for? Anyway, if you have a barbell: if you wanna grow, you gotta row.

Where does one rent PC games? At the local rental shop?

I actually agree with this. Becoming a sword is a process that's violent yet cold, cruel yet methodical. But that is only the beginning, isn't it? A sword's expected life and intended task is much worse, without guarantees of a happy ending or just reward. The necessary agent of the irrational natural order of things: "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"

That makes sense. These things do look a bit too much like Ponzi schemes for my taste, tbh. The thing is you can always cancel your insurance if you feel you're being ripped off. You can't very well stop paying taxes if you feel your money isn't being used for what it's supposed to, can you? Themselves?

If the problem is with your toe and not your ankle, you could try . edit: @Gfted1: I don't care if there's hair somewhere near her areola...

Um... only it would be simpler to allow Shep to tell them to "take a hike" when they first meet. I don't understand. Why do they keep shoving NPCs down our throat regardless of player choice? Are Bio writers so enamoured with their own work that they truly believe that everyone absolutely, positively needs to experience the bliss that is their NPC design and writing? I've hated this since KotOR, and apparently, it's here to stay. DA?

Okay, fine. Let's assume it does not ACTIVELY promote unhealthy living habits. I'm taking that back. Do you people also need "evidence" that it is inherently unfair as it doesn't have those that WILL cause greater expenses to the system pay more? This in effect means that responsible people are paying the consequences of the excesses of those that just don't care. Oh, wait. I didn't show "evidence" that obesity leads to cardiovascular disease and smoking leads to cancer, right? Silly me. Nah. UHC saves money by being understaffed, underequipped and overcrowded. It wouldn't be as expensive as current premiums are, even more so considering the current lack of real competition in that sector. Uh, yes. I said: No, I was simply arguing from the premises given. That UHC will be cheaper for the vast majority than insurance premiums. If many people already can't afford it, and taxes to cover for it were expected to be higher than premiums are now, for everyone, there wouldn't really be an argument - hence my question "what's the point?" I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anything but your word to support that, and the fact that anything government-run is more inefficient.

What the hell? That's exactly what I'm saying. Diagonal reading is bad for you. I was asking what's the point if you need to raise taxes to the point where there's no difference between paying a premium (current system) and the increased taxes needed to set up UHC (proposed system). What savings are you talking about? Of course I'm not arguing that government programs are more efficient. As a matter of fact, I said exactly the opposite in, uh, the post right above yours. ???