Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/20/08 12:05 PM, Jackrabbit-slims wrote:

At 8/19/08 11:51 PM, adrshepard wrote: I do not think it is a contradiction that 100 college presidents could be wise and responsible in their own behavior but may not have the best insight into directing other people's lives.

Ok so thats where you and I disagree on a fundamental fact - so I can't pursue it any farther. I think that dozens of college presidents, after their years of experience would use that experience try to make changes which would better protect their students.

I'll jump on this and even take it further. Are you saying that your opinion about college drinking is either more informed or reasonable than people who have been on college campuses for a combined total of over a millenia? How about people who have seen college campuses both before AND after the drinking age was moved to 21? You don't trust that they'd understand what the impact that moving the drinking age has been?

I don't even mean just a blind look at the statistics that show drinking has gone up, you could argue that just looking at the statistics wouldn't prove jack and you'd be right. I'm talking about incredibly smart people who have tremendous amounts of experience in dealing with college students. You have to assume they're going to have some insight into the direct impacts moving the drinking age has had, independent of the changing cultural influences on drinking.

So, in that vein, I ask again. They may not have the BEST insight into what's best for college students, but I think there is very convincing backing to suggest they have better insight than you do.

At 8/20/08 12:02 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: No, but not for the "he was innocent in the first place" argument. Killing the executioner was a survival technique. Although it's morally reprehensible that he did it, the fact was that you can never prosecute someone for doing what they needed to do to survive. Every person should consider the lives of others over their own lives, but it's their right NOT to do it. I wouldn't charge to man for the same reason I wouldn't charge Bob McPlaceholdername for murder because Hitler McScaryname put a gun to his head and made Bob shoot Joseph McDeadpants under threat of death.

Fucking bingo.

Has nobody ever heard about the right to survival?

There are two reasons why the guy would still be executed (if guilty) for killing his own executioner: because he's still sentenced to death and because he's interfering with what the law deems a righteous execution.

If he's innocent, then he's cleared of his death sentence and if he kills the executioner, he's actually HELPING the law. By saving his own life, he has prevented the execution of an innocent man.

There is no law that says you can't kill someone who's trying to kill you.

And yet, McCain is one of the most absent senators in Congress. He votes on fewer things than almost anyone, even when he's not campaigning. This year, actually, he is the most absent senator.

Guess what, though? That shit shouldn't matter, either.

At 8/20/08 11:37 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Yeah he never smoked any illegal substances...he just happened to 'smell' it once at a party he happened to be at. No one ever smokes it ,we all just happen to see it being smoked by strangers who just happen to be in our homes. Plus even if we look like we are smoking it, we are really just pretending to try & fit in...none of us EVER inhale ! ever !

I know a lot of people who hang out with potheads who've never tried weed. If you're trying to imply that anyone who goes to parties where some people are smoking weed has tried it, then, even though you don't know anyone like that, they do exist.

At 8/20/08 11:34 AM, Gunter45 wrote: People are not free to do with their creations as they wish, there are responsibilities. If a scientist creates a sentient being with feelings, then he is responsible for making sure

Odd, I've never had some of my typing get cut off in the middle of my post.

What I had said is that he's responsible for making sure that it's cared for. He's created life, after all, and there are all kinds of rules and regulations concerning how you treat living creatures in this country.

Now, it should be treated as an equal human being, however, there would have to be legislation drawn up to account for it. It wouldn't pass of course, because the Moral Majority would claim that it's a defamation of God's creation, even though it really should be seen as a testament to God's brilliance that he could develop us with such expertise and capability, but whatever.

At 8/20/08 11:13 AM, poxpower wrote: 1. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

In this scenario, there are legal channels for dealing with this. Excepting weird situations and just going with the vanilla scenario where he's doing a normal bit and some evidence comes to light, he should be charged with escaping prison. Of course, I think, given the circumstance, he'd be let off the hook for it, but he should definitely be charged for it.

People are held in holding cells to await trial. Should they get to escape if they're proven innocent later? The system is flawed, but the legal structure it provides is necessary.

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

No. Even according to Hobbes' social contract, you're allowed to kill in defense of your life. Now, had he been actually guilty, the state still has a compelling interest to kill the guy, whether or not what he did still constitutes self-defense .

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

People are not free to do with their creations as they wish, there are responsibilities. If a scientist creates a sentient being with feelings, then he is responsible for making sure

4.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder? What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?

He'd have to be able to prove it. A situation in which the guy has a gun trained on 5 bound and gagged hostages, then he's pretty much in the clear. If it's some sort of conspiracy in which the guy has some kind of plan that he's going to enact but isn't physically threatening anyone as of yet, you'd have to prove that he had the means and the resolve to go through with it and the only thing stopping him was lethal force. That means you'd have to prove, not only if he was actually going to do it, but the fact that you had to kill him.

What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

I'd say he has to at least try to stop the guy. In fact, I think it's a commendable effort and a sign of moral integrity if he tried his damnedest to stop the guy with nonlethal methods and failed.

It would just mean that he sucks at being a hero.

At 8/19/08 07:41 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 8/19/08 07:34 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/19/08 02:10 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

What? I've never heard anyone describe pregnancy as an illness.

If pregnancy isn't an illness, then why is it treated even if the mother's life is not threatend?

I wouldn't consider a broken arm an illness but it's treated. Maybe you want to rephrase that question to Gunter?

Well I think that sums it up neatly.

Not all procedures treat illnesses. There are all kinds of optional surgeries that doctors perform all the time in hospitals. You can guarantee that refusing to perform those procedures only because they "don't believe in them" isn't a good enough justification.

Surprisingly, the big issue here is not whether or not people drink to excess before they turn 21.

Granted, if people are going to anyway, the thing to do is simply remove the ineffective law. It's just like with the DC handgun ban. Having one of the highest instances of gun-related violence in the country, it just seems ridiculous to keep handguns illegal as you're basically only limiting freedom for its own sake at that point.

Basically, if a law does not work, then it is ineffectual to keep pouring money into it just because you think that legality is equivalent to a full-fledged endorsement of the activity.

And again, that's not even the big issue here. While it is a major point and should stand on its own, the real benefit to bringing the drinking age back down is that it actually could reduce college binge drinking.

Let's face it, one of the reasons why people drink to excess in college is because they're able to. When you turn 21 and you're away from any sort of moderating influence (i.e. your parents), then guess what's going to happen? Hell, look at what does happen. The fact is, if you're going to be legal to drink, it might as well be when you're most likely still under the care of your parents. By the time you're off on your own, drinking isn't a taboo and there's probably a good chance you've even downed a couple with your dad over a ballgame. If there's anything that takes the edge off of drinking, it's having a beer with your family.

I swear to God, though, if anybody replies with a "oh, you expect this to work all the time?!!!" as some kind of rebuttal, I'm going to choke an infant to death. Of course people are still going to binge drink and there will be drunk drivers and people will still die of alcohol poisoning. That's going to happen regardless. This is simply something to alleviate a little bit of the pressure and, if current trends are any indicator, the system that's set up right now does not work.

Remember, the drinking age was RAISED to 21 in the 80s in order to cut down on all of the problems associated with drinking. Seeing as how these colleges have some research to show that it's making things worse, why the hell not bring things back to the way they were?

At 8/19/08 10:13 PM, Korriken wrote: meh, this is just another way to get Obama's face in the newspapers and tv again, and keeping McCain and (heh) Barr (as if he ever even get mentioned other than in public talk radio) from being covered. Of course, I would personally find it INCREDIBLY humorous if Clinton actually managed to upstage Obama and win the nomination. question is, would she take the nomination? well she IS a clinton...

That doesn't make any sense. This doesn't help Obama's position, why would it be a ploy by his campaign? That's ridiculous. Not all coverage is good coverage.

At 8/20/08 09:11 AM, homor wrote:

At 8/19/08 02:20 PM, aninjaman wrote: This is Bullshit fox news trying to make the Dems look weak and fractured.

thats a steaming load you just fed everyone.

No, it's a good point. A lot of the vote is swayed by who people think is going to win. If the Democrats seem like they still don't have a strong candidate, then that's more votes for McCain, it's pretty damn simple, but I hope that you managed to grasp the concept when it's spoon-fed to you.

At 8/19/08 02:16 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Did you attend high school? If so, did you drink, or did you witness seniors drinking?

Nobody drinks in High School, it's illegal.

Besides, the drinking age used to be 18 in the US. It's not like this would be radical and new. The reasoning behind raising the drinking age to 21 in the first place was dubious at best. I have no problem with this.

At 8/19/08 02:02 PM, Memorize wrote: One reason: It's a private practice.

Again, that's the only place this is acceptable. I've been over this twice.

If it's not THEIR clinic or hospital, they don't get to make the call. That's the job of the board of directors or the president or whoever is in charge. If they're not the sole decision maker, then they do the job they signed up to do.

Bottom line.

Also, I do find it rather humorous that the same group of people who call 'homosexuality natural', are the same group of people who also say that 'pregnancy is an illness'. Those two may be spun by them so they do not contradict, but I bet they wouldn't take too kindly to my saying "homosexuality is an illness".

What? I've never heard anyone describe pregnancy as an illness.

At 8/19/08 12:31 PM, Proteas wrote: .... so that's enough instances for you to call for every doctor in the nation who has religious convictions (as cited by a previous poster, well over 75% of them) to step down from their posts?

Over-react much?

The thread title is misleading and exaggerates the point. He's just saying that doctors should have a higher obligation to their job than to their beliefs because, by holding their beliefs above their jobs, they're forcing those beliefs on everyone, sometimes to the detriment of their civil rights and their health. It's not that Christians shouldn't be doctors; it's that they should be doctors first and Christians second.

At 8/19/08 06:26 AM, Centurion-Ryan wrote: How does stopping gay people from reproducing qualify as effecting somebody's health?

Granted, but the fact is, it's within their right to do so. That's what the government holds up and, unless it's a private practice, it's not the doctor's decision to make. If he doesn't like it, he can set up his own practice where he gets to choose the procedures he will do and which he don't.

He's not paid to legislate or to be the sole determinate of his clinic or hospital's policy.

At 8/19/08 06:05 AM, Blackhawkdown wrote: Which is what it sounds like the fire marshal originally did in this situation. He didn't step out from behind the aisle and whip out his citation booklet and hand her a ticket, he asked her to watch her language. Did he really need to ask her to watch her language? Not really, but he did and it really wasn't him abusing any sort of power (heck this is something a prudish samaritan might have done.)

Which is fine. What he did after that is what caused the whole situation. He told her that she needed to come back over there. When she was like "um, no, I'm actually in the middle of something," he pulled out handcuffs.

There's really no "two stories" about it. I'd be pretty damn upset if some asshole pulled handcuffs on me simply because I didn't listen to them lecture me. I don't know, it might have something to do with the fact that no rational person in authority should ever do something so fucking stupid.

He's the one that created the scene. The woman overreacted, but how many times have you had someone whip out handcuffs and threaten you in the middle of a goddamn store for saying a cuss word in passing? She shouldn't have acted that way, but if that fucking DOUCHE hadn't overreacted first, then the situation would have been completely avoided. And he's the one in uniform. He has a duty to keep things cool and not flip out at the drop of a hat like that.

Of course, none of it would have happened if he minded his own damn business in the first place. You have to be a dick to begin with to make someone apologize for a slip of the tongue.

About a week. I had just had hernia surgery so I was stuck lying down the whole time. It hurt immensely even to stand up, so not having to get up and go to the bathroom very often was welcome. Besides, I didn't really have to eat anyway, seeing as how moving around much caused me considerable pain.

At 8/18/08 04:02 PM, n64kid wrote: Oh so people shouldn't follow their passion to be a doctor just because abortions happen. Surgery goes wrong, so why do people choose to become surgeons?

Not for lack of effort on the surgeon's part. Surgeons don't make mistakes because of a conflict of interests, it's human error.

Having "excessive wealth" is a sin, so why do people choose to enter the financial industry?

And if that's the way someone thinks, they shouldn't be in the financial industry. If you have an aversion to usury, maybe you shouldn't be a usurer. That's the exact point fli's making, retard.

Games will be lost, so why do people choose to become professional athletes? Crime and corruption happens, even within the police, so why do people choose to become cops?

Again, not from lack of effort. These things have nothing to do with the topic. It's not that people shouldn't be doctors because things happen. It's that they shouldn't be doctors because their beliefs contrast with medical practices. Patients shouldn't suffer simply because their doctor doesn't want to perform a procedure for ideological reasons.

You can always find another qualified doctor who is willing and able to perform operations. Who are you to tell doctors who put 8 years of their lives studying to do what they want to do and tell them to put their own morals and beliefs aside just so you can be happy. You appear to be on the side of "who are they to tell us we're wrong" when you're guilty of the same crime.

It makes sense when those beliefs interfere with them doing their jobs.

Here's an example for you: The Science Teachers Association of Texas is one of my clients and one of their positions they take is the support of teaching evolution in the classroom. If I had a strong moral disagreement with evolution, then I really shouldn't work for them, should I? It means I won't do a good job working for them and I would be upset with what they were doing. Everyone loses.

If someone has a problem performing medical procedures, such as abortions, then they shouldn't put themselves in a position where they will be reasonably asked to do so. Just because someone might be available to do the job instead of you is no excuse. If someone else is going to do the job without bitching, then what the hell good are you, other than a drain of hospital funding?

Besides, what about if the hospital is understaffed and somebody needs an emergency abortion done to save their life? If you're the only doctor available and you let someone die because you have a problem with performing the necessary surgery, then someone else should have been hired instead of you. There isn't always someone else. Either you do the job you signed on for, or you find another profession, it's that simple.

I recognize this particular instance in popular culture. I, too, am part of this grand reference and so I will respond to show that I am in the loop. The fact that I know what the OP is talking about makes it funny.

I've been working on a website for this one association and I've found that IE and Firefox treat my CSS differently. So, I think I have something fixed on it and then the board meeting comes around and the fucking banner is shifted to the left 20 pixels because they're using some OTHER version of IE than what I tested it in.

Honestly, all of the different ways even different versions of the same fucking program treat all of this new and improved code that's out these days is ridiculous. It makes me long for the days of simple HTML and notepad.

Here's the bottom line, as I see it. She swore and the fire marshal asked her to watch her mouth, so she apologized. That's perfectly fine and reasonable. What's not alright, however, is for him to order her to come back so he could lecture her and then pulling out handcuffs when she didn't.

At that point, he's needlessly provoking and threatening her. If people are held responsible for causing a scene, then this fire marshal should be reprimanded for pulling cuffs on someone just because she didn't want to be lectured while she's trying to have a conversation with her family. The police, much less the fire department, don't have the power to detain you just so they can tell you to wash your mouth out with soap, that's blatantly overstepping their authority.

Anyone claiming that what he did was just and necessary for keeping the peace can fuck off. His actions had nothing to do with keeping the peace and everything to do with feeling insulted because she had better things to do than get parented by someone she doesn't even know. There's keeping the peace and being a douchebag and he obviously opted for the latter.

John McCain's awesome for hooking up with Ella Fitzgerald and Obama's awesome for being her kid.

At 8/15/08 04:03 PM, Al6200 wrote: It doesn't mean that we'd have someone from overseas tampering with the voting machines, it just means that we'd have a more diverse pool of people watching to make sure nothing happens.

I'm not implying that anybody near the thing is going to tamper with it no matter what. Just saying that it's risky to involve foreign interests in such a domestic matter. Besides, it seems like anyone close to the damn thing is pretty much accused of tampering with it. How much more so if we involve foreign nationals?

It just seems like it'd cause a lot of uneasiness at best.

I got some gold plated rims and a spoiler. They said it'd make me faster but it all seems to be excessive and heavy. All the other zombies laugh at how slowly I grumble and mill around. It's embarrassing.

At 8/15/08 03:33 PM, Al6200 wrote: That's what I'm afraid of. But I think that we can try to get around some of those issues by inviting international observers to observe our elections.

International doesn't mean unbiased. If anything, I dislike the idea of our sovereignty being threatened by international tampering with the voting machines more than the idea of one party gaining the edge over the other. At least that's merely a domestic concern instead of domestic AND international.

At 8/15/08 11:01 AM, Mr-Money wrote: they are voting to get rid of net neutrality and turn the internet into a TV-style model.

Nobody is voting on this.

Remington 11-87 autoloader.

It's a pretty, pretty gun.

I don't believe anyone mentioned the evolutionary dangers of homogenization.

Sure, there's been some discussion about how it's not trendy or whatever, but nothing about what the whole point of genetic variation is all about.

Fact is, there's a reason why random genetic variation is a good thing and why it's been the method of choice for reproducing. Even organisms that can reproduce both sexually and asexually have mechanisms that give precedence to sexual reproduction, only using asexual means when there's no viable partner. The reasoning is that, with more genetic variation, there is a reduced risk that one disease or one traumatic event like a climate shift or what have you isn't going to wipe out the whole species.

When you allow for genetic variation, you encourage adaptations like being resistant to the AIDS virus or smallpox. One of the big concerns is, when you can choose the specific genetic map of your offspring, will this completely shut down that evolutionary process? The way virii and bacterium are evolving and changing, especially since we're introducing natural selection in a big way with more advanced antibiotics which serve to create more potent diseases, is hampering our ability to adapt through random variation going to be affected by this?

It's just one of those things you wouldn't know until it was too late. I don't think it's a concern that should get in the way of science, but it is something that should be heavily on the minds of geneticists who pioneer this technology in order to lower its risk.

At 8/13/08 09:44 PM, homor wrote: except its nessicary to the people's survival.

thats whats important, not some bullshit code of honor, political policy, un rules or any other shit like that.

whats important is that the civilians survive, and live a life that doesn't suck.

Christ, you're daft.

Revolution is an internal process. By instigating the process on a country that's not ready for it, you basically assume that you know more about their culture and their capability for just leadership better than they do. And, guess what, it's simply not the case. The moment we leave, we're going to open up a major power vacuum that's going to result in a lot of casualties and, quite possibly, a leader that's even worse than Saddam was.

It is never necessary to force people to revolt. People everywhere have been able to stand up for themselves. The Indians were able to stand up to British rule, blacks were able to stand up against Jim Crow and segregation, and so on and so forth.

You make it seem like some cut and dry situation where we swoop in as knights in shining armor, they hop on our white steed and we carry them off to Neverland. It doesn't work that way. We've totally destabilized their country and they don't have a clue, much less a gameplan, on how to pick up the pieces so we're stuck holding their hand while they do.

You're a fucking idiot so stop trying to pretend you have any idea what's involved in international politics. Leave your aborted thought process in a dumpster where it belongs.

Many different people. When I had my hair a certain way, I was told I looked like Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman. I've been told I look like the lead singer from Panic at the Disco. I've been told I look like Alex from A Clockwork Orange. God, I know I'm leaving some out. I suppose I have one of those faces.

one of those devilishly handsome faces

At 8/13/08 03:39 PM, Franklin-Moore wrote: Better than being effected by the mainstream news. But that is inevitable too.

How is it better? Anything that takes the place of independent thought and research is inherently a bad thing.

At 8/13/08 02:25 PM, homor wrote: too bad we're making strong political changes in iraq that will help it greatly because that makes this stupid irrelevant.

It's not our place to instigate these changes which they're clearly not ready for. You don't force revolution on another country.