1
World of Warcraft / Re: Wrath of the Lich King
« on: March 15, 2010, 05:44:30 PM »race change to tauren inc on cataclysmlaunch dayweeks later when they open it up?
ftfy
This board has been fossilized.
You are reading an archive of Brontoforumus, a.k.a. The Worst Forums Ever, from 2008 to early 2014. Registration and posting (for most members) has been disabled here to discourage spambots from taking over. Old members can still log in to view boards, PMs, etc.
The new message board is at http://brontoforum.us.
race change to tauren inc on cataclysmlaunch dayweeks later when they open it up?
1. Carrying the pregnancy to term shouldn't be done if the mother is at higher risk than most to die during the birth.
2. Drinking bleach is also a danger to the mother, and whether it's for the purpose of killing a fetus or not it is likely to get them locked up anyway for attempted suicide or something along those lines.
3. This law does minimize the risk of abortion, since currently abortion is being performed by people with no medical background and the practices are posing just as much a threat to the mother as they do the fetus. Furthermore, just because women are going to continue to exert control of their bodies regardless of the law doesn't mean that we should make the law fit their desires. Your argument here could be stretched to say that we should get rid of all law period because people are just going to do whatever they want anyway.
4. Telling me to go fuck myself because I brought up what can be considered (in this case) a political cartoon dealing with the issue at hand is, well, juvenile at best.
As legislature, this law is poorly written and will cause abuse enough as to outweigh any good by a factor of ten. As an attempt to make a moral society, however, I can appreciate the sentiment.
QuoteShe may be fired for the weeks she has to spend recovering from the pregnancy
A minor quible, but FMLA requires employers to hold your job for up to 3 months every year for medical issues like pregnancy. Of course, that doesn't mean you're getting paid for it.
If you can't care for a baby, then carry it to term and then put it up for adoption.
You seem to believe that abortion is ever the only logical choice, and this just doesn't make any sense to me. Adoption agencies are far more commonly found than abortion clinics, and nobody is going to fire you for putting your baby up for adoption.
Edit: Oh, look.
I will say that a significant difference between a doctor performing an abortion and falling down some stairs is that one will end the pregnancy and the other is just as likely to result in a deformed baby, which is cruel in and of itself. I don't know if that is why MCE doesn't like back-alley methods, but it seems like a good reason to dislike them to me.
Now, in a way I can see this as reckless endangerment charge, even if the fetus isn't considered living yet. But reckless endangerment isn't a capital punishment kind of crime.
If the justice system could definitively prove when someone was trying to end a pregnancy through such methods versus when someone had an accident during some extremely bad morning sickness, then I'd be all for punishing the people (though not for murder or attempted murder). And the reason that I would be for punishing these people is that they do have an alternative to drinking bleach: carrying out the pregnancy. Unless the abortion is absolutely necessary for the well being of the mother, then they should pursue whatever legal, safe ways are available. I understand that in an ideal world a legal, safe abortion clinic would be on every corner, but as long as that is not happening then women are just going to have to deal with the laws of reality.
anyway, all the points about this law affecting accidents etc. have already been made and I agree with them. I think it should be legal to do whatever to yourself and don't give a shit about unwanted zygotes but i also think that driving an hour or two to get an abortion isn't actually that brutal a situation.
That little nugget of sense, however, is that it is reasonable to encourage abortions to be performed under qualified medical supervision rather than through artisanal methods, because there are ways to do this that are significantly better than others. Criminalizing the 14 year old girl who drinks bleach because she has no way (socially or otherwise) to get a sensible abortion is an insane way to go about this, but you can't argue that if such a practice was somehow eliminated the world wouldn't be a better place. The stupid law isn't the solution, but I honestly can't look at a sentiment that wants to eradicate the coat hanger, the knitting needle and the gut punch, and judge it abominable (as long as this sentiment comes with a willingness to increase and facilitate access to the safest methods of abortion we can devise, of course).
The law is fucked up, but I don't think the distinction that MCE wants to make is.
I guess some people want to see such weighty deeds performed with a measure of dignity and want to criminalize anything not meeting that standard. Isn't that just downright bizarre?
I wouldn't base a decision like whether or not to terminate a pregnancy on something like not being willing to drive the distance between here and LA, but anyway.
There is a sane argument for this under all the bullshit rhetoric, which is that intentionally causing a miscarriage is extremely hazardous to one's own definitely-living, fully-grown health. There's an argument that that's the person's own business but, fuck, if I'm going to be ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt, then there should be some responsibility on the part of a person whodrank bleach no that's clichefell down some stairs no that's even more clicheFALCKOWN PAUNCH!!!
Of course this argument only works if there is a safer and more responsible action available, which okay no there really isn't. The people of the fine state of Utah will of course argue that the safe and responsible action is to have the damn baby, but that's the kid of someone who was going to harm herself to get rid of it. Hope you've got a big enough social services budget to cover that shit.
yay stamina buff for prot~
Also, I wonder if the new Rampage still counts as an enrage effect, because as much as I love Enraged Regeneration I'm not speccing into Enrage for it.
Let me let you in on a little secret
Berserker Rage is something you should look into
I can't be expected to press buttons!
yay stamina buff for prot~
Also, I wonder if the new Rampage still counts as an enrage effect, because as much as I love Enraged Regeneration I'm not speccing into Enrage for it.
So instead of saying that, you tried to raise retarded objections to the people who were actually on that side of the argument?
Yes, because the people who were on that side were being stupid by still actually arguing about it.
Okay, I think this particular argument is getting convoluted - which was my point in the first place (arguing about costs is a really slippery slope that leads down to the deep dark pit of what does this have to do with anything).
How could I have been so shortsighted to refute some numbers that they discovered?
I wasn't saying it was. I was saying, however, that neither is TV watching.
Us forumgoers are probably too biased to make a call on this, but I'm willing to bet that there are still plenty of people out there who don't have a computer and don't see any need for one. People who can't afford one notwithstanding.
I'm glad that you find satisfaction in picking nits rather than addressing the substance of the argument.
If it helps you to move beyond this asinine point, then disregard cable tv as an example and replace it with, I don't know, going to a movie with a friend or girlfriend.
here let me address both examples at once
Can somebody find for me some examples of people addicted to cable TV or to going to movies?Could you miss the fucking point any harder? I'm not arguing that wow addiction is not a bad thing. I'm not arguing that wow addiction is something that does not exist. I'm arguing that defining wow addiction as playing far fewer hours a week than the typical person watches TV is ridiculous.
And my point was that watching TV and playing a video game are two separate, sort of incomparable things. You'd have to get into specifics of whether watching TV includes having it on in the background, being asleep in front of it, owning a TV, etc.
I gamble that if you tone it down to people who are just sitting in front of a TV, doing absolutely nothing else, the rates of addiction - addiction in this case meaning to a degree of self-destruction - would be negligible at best. And even then, that's assuming that every case of obesity in North America is directly related to TV watching and has nothing to do with general lack of exercize or the invention of the deep fried Twinkie.
My response to this is that WoW is still a pretty bad game. Somebody is going to make some piddly argument about how what they like defines good and how the ideas of bad taste and quality don't actually, but that's to be expected.
Also how much does Comcast charge for an internet package? Does it come with a free computer, too? I should hope so, or the whole 'cable costs more' argument falls apart pretty quickly.
I love how both Paco and I took some pains to say that we're not saying people should spend every waking hour digging coal, but that the replies in the thread accuse us of saying just that.
I'm glad that you find satisfaction in picking nits rather than addressing the substance of the argument.
If it helps you to move beyond this asinine point, then disregard cable tv as an example and replace it with, I don't know, going to a movie with a friend or girlfriend.
here let me address both examples at once
Can somebody find for me some examples of people addicted to cable TV or to going to movies?
"Oh fuck, he's taking his examples from the largest cable provider in the country,
Because if it's the largest then it must be the cheapest!and the one from whom a lot of people don't have another choice!
Again, do I need to explain why addiction is bad?