Who the hell schedules a vendor to come in to make a sales pitch during lunch? That is what a co-worker said to me. Me thinks someone does not want us to approve purchasing something. And what exactly is this something? You cant even tell from their web site due to the vague marketing speak. Obviously, it is so grand that there can be no...
Read More
Read More
kay:
*grin* That is rather....odd. Bad marketing, bad timing...yep. Doomed early.
~cheers
~cheers
guildenstern:
arlingtoncemetery.org
guildenstern:
B&B and a Mennonite farm
guildenstern:
The great outdoors
guildenstern:
Bombed bus
This is officially becoming the year of deaths. I would joke about four funerals and a wedding if I had not already surpassed those numbers and I have already filled my wedding quota.
What do I do right after I get back in town? Arlington National Cemetery to see the folks and some people I knew. Should have time to watch the changing of the...
Read More
What do I do right after I get back in town? Arlington National Cemetery to see the folks and some people I knew. Should have time to watch the changing of the...
Read More
VIEW 10 of 10 COMMENTS
kay:
It sounds like a great place. My Finnish girlfriend, Pia said she liked it there as well, and her parents were always traveling there. I had an Ice person who was in love with the place as well that I spoke to last year. Mayhaps I need to consider going there on vacation when Neel and I leave here in August? Do you think it would be worth looking in to?
~cheers
~cheers
kay:
*grin* Yes satin sheets with that dress would be terrible. Rather amusing, to an onlooker perhaps... 
Good to know about the Canary islands. I will keep it in mind as a destination. Though I'm not sure where we are going to be. If he gets the full time job, then that will probably find us in Fuji, as we will not get that much time off before needing to return to the Ice. I would really like to go to Gibralter as well.
~cheers
Good to know about the Canary islands. I will keep it in mind as a destination. Though I'm not sure where we are going to be. If he gets the full time job, then that will probably find us in Fuji, as we will not get that much time off before needing to return to the Ice. I would really like to go to Gibralter as well.
~cheers
Looks like I am off to Rome. Not being Catholic it just seem odd. Speaking of odd, heard the Queen of England is going to attend the formal ceremonies. I guess they got over King James seceding from Rome (The Church of England), commonly known as the Episcopal church.
kay:
Wow! Have a decent time over there?!
~cheers
~cheers
In Morocco my significant other is worth 7 camels.
kay:
*grin* Nothing a wood chipper or the volcano would not be able to handle. he he.
~cheers
he he.
~cheers
My SO's niece was molested (groped) at a religious festival in Spain. What's up with that?
kay:
New kind of religion? I hate it when people do that sort of shit. I find it rather offensive personally.
Glad to see you are still around love!
~cheers
Glad to see you are still around love!
~cheers
One out of four people in this country is mentally unbalanced.
Think of your three closest friends...
If they seem okay,
then you are the one.
Think of your three closest friends...
If they seem okay,
then you are the one.
VIEW 6 of 6 COMMENTS
infra:
Looks like you got most of your replies in the thread, but I'll post mine here.
I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty.
I'm able to hold both of these views because I see them as confronting two different issues. In the case of the death penalty, I tend to take one of the views that Hobbes wrote about in The Leviathan: that law, in its search for appropriate punishment, serves to restrain the will to revenge. To me, justice seems to be most just when it is devoid of passion; the elimination of a human being as being unworthy of life is, IMO, the antithesis of this. (There are other substantial reasons for my objection, such as the known error rate in capital punishment cases, but this is my philosophical and ethical reasoning.)
In the case of abortion rights, I see it as being the only currently workable option for balancing the rights of the child with the rights of the mother. I agree that a fetus is a life; I also agree, however, that the vast majority of abortions are done in the first two trimesters, before the child is viable. (According to the CDC stats posted at religioustolerance.org, approx. 88% of all abortions are done previous to 13 weeks.)
The question as I see it is this: does the existence of a life that is fully dependent on the mother (i.e., that is not yet viable) serve as a valid reason to force the mother to accommodate that dependency?
I have no objection to encouraging the mother to do so, when this is done in a positive manner. (Scare tactics I find indefensible -- on both sides.) Nor do I have any objection to the notion that society has a vested interest in protecting those who are not able to protect themselves. However, I think that it crosses the line when we legally assign an obligation to an individual when that obligation is based on biological conditions.
What we are faced with is an interpretation of the meaning and ethical purpose of pregnancy. Does the state, or society as a whole, have a greater interest in the birth of a child than the mother? Does the father have an equal interest? Do either of these interests, if they exist, trump the interest a woman has in having control over her own biological functions?
Personally, I would like to see options such as embryo cryopreservation be more actively pursued -- embryo transplantation is already used as a successful means of surrogacy, for example, and there are adoption agencies that work to find mothers for embryos left over at fertility clinics after successful pregnancies. (Of course, that would raise other issues, such as vested genetic interest and weighing of the paternal and maternal interests. It's by no means a clean solution.) Until such options become readily available, though, I tend to see the availability of abortion rights as the closest thing we have to a solution that balances the rights of all involved -- including the child, considering that abortions cannot be done after viability without existing medical necessity.
It's a hard choice and there is no easy answer on either side. ("Her body, her choice," is just as empty as, "Abortion is murder." Both ignore the complexity of the issue.) In such situations we must make do with the best solution available, I think, even if it leaves us wanting.
To paraphrase one of my favorite scenes from Criminal Law: The law is the dark shadow of justice. It does not shine. It's not even the same shape... but we know what casts it, and it's as close as we can come.
Right now, leaving the choice in the hands of the individual, until the point of viability, is as close as we can come to justice. So I endorse it.
I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty.
I'm able to hold both of these views because I see them as confronting two different issues. In the case of the death penalty, I tend to take one of the views that Hobbes wrote about in The Leviathan: that law, in its search for appropriate punishment, serves to restrain the will to revenge. To me, justice seems to be most just when it is devoid of passion; the elimination of a human being as being unworthy of life is, IMO, the antithesis of this. (There are other substantial reasons for my objection, such as the known error rate in capital punishment cases, but this is my philosophical and ethical reasoning.)
In the case of abortion rights, I see it as being the only currently workable option for balancing the rights of the child with the rights of the mother. I agree that a fetus is a life; I also agree, however, that the vast majority of abortions are done in the first two trimesters, before the child is viable. (According to the CDC stats posted at religioustolerance.org, approx. 88% of all abortions are done previous to 13 weeks.)
The question as I see it is this: does the existence of a life that is fully dependent on the mother (i.e., that is not yet viable) serve as a valid reason to force the mother to accommodate that dependency?
I have no objection to encouraging the mother to do so, when this is done in a positive manner. (Scare tactics I find indefensible -- on both sides.) Nor do I have any objection to the notion that society has a vested interest in protecting those who are not able to protect themselves. However, I think that it crosses the line when we legally assign an obligation to an individual when that obligation is based on biological conditions.
What we are faced with is an interpretation of the meaning and ethical purpose of pregnancy. Does the state, or society as a whole, have a greater interest in the birth of a child than the mother? Does the father have an equal interest? Do either of these interests, if they exist, trump the interest a woman has in having control over her own biological functions?
Personally, I would like to see options such as embryo cryopreservation be more actively pursued -- embryo transplantation is already used as a successful means of surrogacy, for example, and there are adoption agencies that work to find mothers for embryos left over at fertility clinics after successful pregnancies. (Of course, that would raise other issues, such as vested genetic interest and weighing of the paternal and maternal interests. It's by no means a clean solution.) Until such options become readily available, though, I tend to see the availability of abortion rights as the closest thing we have to a solution that balances the rights of all involved -- including the child, considering that abortions cannot be done after viability without existing medical necessity.
It's a hard choice and there is no easy answer on either side. ("Her body, her choice," is just as empty as, "Abortion is murder." Both ignore the complexity of the issue.) In such situations we must make do with the best solution available, I think, even if it leaves us wanting.
To paraphrase one of my favorite scenes from Criminal Law: The law is the dark shadow of justice. It does not shine. It's not even the same shape... but we know what casts it, and it's as close as we can come.
Right now, leaving the choice in the hands of the individual, until the point of viability, is as close as we can come to justice. So I endorse it.
reprobate:
Its not feudal its complete meritocracy. The dime a dozen, was just a comment on a particular behavior of a particular personality type who feels the need to rush into an argument their not really part of and stick up fro someone without saying anything more than "You suck".
And yeah, its a waste of time, but at the moment I'm waiting on a guy coming to get a dumpster out of my driveway. Time, I got.
And yeah, its a waste of time, but at the moment I'm waiting on a guy coming to get a dumpster out of my driveway. Time, I got.
It sounds like it was a good time with the sales monkey! I love moments like that. We have a good many of those here as well, but it usually revolves around our Safety Toad. Oi.
~cheers