Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

1. Is it ridiculous to condone the slaughter and consumption of some animals, but forbid the same practices with other animals? Is there really a difference between raising/slaughtering/consuming cows, sheep, goats, chickens, et al. and doing the same with dogs, cats, horses, et al?

2. Are the pyramids in Egypt and Central America, the Maya Calendar, the Nazca Lines and other unexplained findings evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence, or remarkable works of human genius?

3. If prisons are successful places of rehabilitation, why is there any need to have sentences that exceed, say, 15-20 years?

4. True or false: Women who smoke are easier than non-smokers.

5. Is the greatest power a U. S. president has nominating Supreme Court justices to replace retiring/deceased justices?

6. Will protesters in Egypt regret forcing Mubarak out and turning their government over to the military?

7. Thirty-four U. S. states recognize a child in utero as a person, if the child is injured or killed during the commission of a crime. Do you see this as a conflict with the Roe v. Wade decision which found that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution?

8. In your opinion, was Lance Armstrong able to win the Tour de France seven straight times without cheating?

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

A while back, there was a plebiscite in California to forbid the sale of horsemeat for human consumption. Despite being a vegetarian, I opposed the law because I thought it was retarded.



They are testament to human ego and eccentricity.



Begging the question.



True. They have less self-respect / less willpower.



No, I'd say executive veto, executive order, and even moral authority and coattails are more significant.



Who knows?



No. Kicking a pregnant woman in the gut hurts someone; an abortion does not.



No idea.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

At some point, the fetus/embryo develops different tissue, muscles and nerves. I'm sure someone feels pain when there is a vacuum sucking them apart... you just don't hear them scream.

1. Is it fair? No. Is it ridiculolus? No. Some animals are delicious, some are cute. When the two subsets intersect it's a harder choice. Also relevant:



2. We have no reason to believe they are anything but exceptional human creations. Any argument that they are more than human will end up mirroring an argument for the existence of God, which says more about the person making the argument and their desire for it to be true than it does for objective fact.

3. They aren't. Maybe they could be (in some, or most cases), but they aren't.

4. Well, a smoker is less likely to be as conscientious of taking care of themselves, so possibly. However, they also taste like an ashtray, so no thanks.

5. Definitely where they can most leave their legacy.

6. Probably not. Mubarak already controlled the military and he ruled through force. The worst case scenario is no change. Also, so far it seems like the military isn't looking to hold power.

7. No, because one deals with the rights of the mother regarding the child, and the other deals with violence against both by an outside party. The mother can most certainly have legal standing where you would not in relation to the fetus.

8. I think his one testicle made him more aerodynamic.

Akina: bitch I will stab you in the face

A partially developed embryo with brain matter the size of a pea is not physiologically capable of self-awareness.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

You can argue the merits of abortion but that isn't the question.

Akina: bitch I will stab you in the face

/thread

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

No, I'm sure that you aren't sure. Pain is the perception of certain stimuli, and the fetus is not capable of perception until 24 weeks of gestation. Even afterwards, the presence of certain chemicals such as adenosine leaves the fetus pretty much sedated. So, 2/3 of the way into pregnancy, abortion hurts no one except the ignorant and eccentrics (not sure if that's the correct word, but I'm referring to people who like to use grotesque verbiage to describe abortions).

inb4 debate between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Let's not hijack this thread.

1) Thinking about it, I don't believe there is any real difference. I chalk it up to the fact that many people consider their dogs, cats, horses, etc as "family" by way of keeping these animals as house pets. However, removing this bias pretty much eliminates the differences between fried chicken and fried cat.

2) Some things just have no explanation. If I absolutely had to choose, I'd say the things that have no real record (Stone Henge for example) could possibly be evidence for some form of other-worldly intelligence; others (the pyramids), that do have some form of historic record can be attributed to human ingenuity.

3) As Aestu stated, this is begging the question. I don't believe that prisons are very successful places for rehabilitation. I do believe that they are a good place to keep the scum of the world, but if you need rehabilitation then check into rehab.

4) True. People who are dumb enough to do something that only makes you smell bad and possibly very ill are probably dumb enough to be super easy.

5) No, the veto is. Don't like something? VETO. What are the chances of having a 2/3 majority to overrule you?

6) In the long run, probably not. But in the short-term, I feel that such a drastic change in gov't will cause many problems including the lack of simple stability. People are out of work now, and are fleeing to Italy across the Mediterranean Sea. Eventually Italy and other countries will say gtfo. What then? Gotta wait. Mubarak was a terrible leader, and I guess they had no choice, but this protest didn't have a leader to take his place or anything like that - it was started on facebook. Will the military really be so much better?

7) Yes, this is a conflict, and I am perfectly okay with this. I think context should play a much bigger role in forming legislature. Perhaps have a separate ruling for "destroying" the fetus rather than "murdering" it? It's all word play anyway.

Meh, I think he's awesome. Who knows how he does it?

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

1. It's very hypocritical, yes. Unless ofc though, you're not eating some animals because they have other uses.

2. Works of human genius. I remember a show on History where they went through the apparatuses used to move the large stones, was pretty awesome.

3. They aren't, and shouldn't be.

4. False. They might be more likely to be easier, but the question asks for verification of a blanket statement. Are they more likely to be easier? I think so. But I think easier women are more likely to smoke, not the other way around.

5. The Judicial branch has only the power to determine the constitutionality of laws. The Exectutive branch doesn't have to bow to their decisions. So the answer is no.

6. Nope.

7. Yes. They clearly conflict.

8. Yes.

I don't see a difference.



Human Ingenuity.



I don't think prisons are successful places of rehabilitation. In fact, the vast majority of inmates re-offend. Actually keeping criminals in prison for their entire sentence might be helpful.



True.



I am going to go against the grain on this one. A veto can be easily over-ridden and an executive order can be voided by the next incoming president. It is significantly more difficult to impeach a Supreme Court justice (in fact, it has only happened once, and it was more than 200 years ago.) A president's choice for Justice can influence the interpretation of law for decades after the president has left office. There is almost no other presidential power that has that sort of influence.



Only time will tell.



I have a problem with the "Constitutional" basis for the Roe v. Wade decision, actually. I don't think that the two situations are congruous, however. It all comes down to intent and choice.



Unless I see evidence to the contrary, yes.

Callysta of Reverence

That one is kind of complicated. There really is no difference, morally or ethically, but different animals have different values for different reasons, and I think our cultural norms reflect that. We don't eat dogs and horses because they traditionally served us better in other ways. Horses were our primary transportation for hundreds if not thousands of years, and dogs are/were more valuable because they provided security and helped provide food because they could be trained to assist in hunting. While our cultural mores now may seem odd, they were established over a very long period of time during which they made perfect sense. The only reason you don't see those same values reflected in other places is because the immediacy of the need for food was greater than the utility those animals provided, so that they were viewed more often as food than as useful tools.



I don't think they show any evidence of non-human intelligence. When something works, and is simple, like pyramids are, it is not difficult to believe that several different people/cultures discovered the concepts behind such a structure at various points in their development without any sort of intercommunication.



I think it is pretty commonly accepted that prisons are basically facilities of higher education for criminals.



I can tell you from personal experience that this is demonstrably true. There are other signs that you can look for in a woman that send the same signal, but they all basically amount to signs of bad decision making. You're just taking advantage by putting yourself forward as yet another bad decision.



Given the number of issues that are now decided in the judiciary instead of the legislature, I'd say that's a pretty big deal.



Too many variables to consider there, and I think our own perceptions color the answer. Americans too often view people from other cultures and places through the prism of our own experience. We don't understand that there are people who view our system and way of life as a detriment. I think we'd be surprised how many people in Egypt would be content, if not happy, with a theocratic system like they have in Iran. I think it would also be short-sighted to assume all the protesters share the same views, and are as homogenized and aligned politically as protesters for a certain issue would be here in the US. In the short term, the military is the best solution.



It is inconsistent, and I could foresee a challenge to those sorts of laws in the future...which I believe is the real purpose of those laws in the first place. However, I believe that delineating the fine lines between a woman choosing to end a pregnancy and a woman having her already much-loved child torn from her womb by forces beyond her control is more than possible.



Possible? Yes. Probable? I don't think so.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

1. Yes, it's ridiculous. Have you ever eaten horse? Horse is fucking delicious. There's a poster in the train station with a picture of a piglet and a puppy, with the caption "why love one and eat the other?" When I pass it, I always think, "why not eat both?" The closest to a logical distinction I've encountered is people who don't eat mammals. That makes more sense to me, since it's not a question of appearance but of brainpower.

2. The pyramids are some of the simplest works of construction possible. I don't understand why people can't get this. 87.5% of its entire weight is in the bottom half. The only remotely impressive thing about them, aside from their scale, are some of the chambers built into the Egyptian ones. Ultimately, pyramids are no more impressive than big sand dunes or naturally occurring hills. Those nifty vaults and chambers, meanwhile, are only marginally cooler than naturally occurring caves.

Yeah, people who are all "LOL ALIENS DID IT" are completely fucking retarded. They're works of vanity, and they're not the slightest bit complex.

3. Prisons aren't successful places of rehabilitation. Countries that use them to rehabilitate never long sentences, unless the purpose of the incarceration is to keep someone dangerous out of society, such as repeat murderers.

4. Both of the women I've dated seriously were or became smokers. They're also both easy, but I like easy girls.

5. Sort of. Yes, because Supreme Court justices are almost never replaced unless they want to. No, because a choice can backfire such as Stevens being nominated by a Republican and becoming a liberal justice. I'd say there's also the consideration of appointees needing Congressional approval, but when moron near-rapists like Clarence Thomas can make the bench, that's really not a problem.

6. You can't regret something you didn't do.

7. As someone else said, it's a question of willingness. Abortion is a decision, being attacked and having your fetus suffer injury/death as a result is not voluntary. It might make more sense to prosecute such people under animal cruelty statutes, though.

8. Probably.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

1. It is ridiculous. A dog is a cow is a cat is a pig is a horse. Either it is okay to eat an animal, or it is not okay. If someone doesn't want to eat dog, then they should not eat it, but they shouldn't keep anyone else who might like some roasted Schnauzer from cooking it up.

2. The pyramids are certainly more than a pile of rocks. When I look at a photo of the pyramids, examine how they are aligned, the perfection of the angles and measurements, the interior design and the sheer size of them, I wonder why the Egyptians didn't continue to progress along the architectural and mathematical paths demonstrated there. When you consider Egypt, you think of the pyramids, something they accomplished thousands of years ago. You'd think that they would have continued to amaze and excel. Meh. Not so much. That is my biggest question when I examine all of these mysteries. How does a civilization advance to the point of some amazing creation, then regress and offer pretty much nothing afterward? How about this: If you had to debate the existence of aliens or God, based on any evidence you might present, which would you rather defend?

EDIT: Debating one side or the other doesn't mean you actually believe the positions you take, of course.

3. There should be no sentence of more than 20 years. Prisons are not places of rehabilitation; they are places of punishment. Any convict who would not learn to be law-abiding after spending years incarcerated, would not learn from being there longer. So, let them go. They are costing more than they are worth being held in prison. And, you know how I feel about people who are so dangerous they must be kept locked away until they die (Hint: they need to die sooner).

4. I have no experience with this, but my brother who has quite a lot says: If she smokes, she pokes. Of course, I've pretty much figured out if she doesn't smoke, she still pokes.

5. What Cally said. The judges appointed by the president will interpret law for decades. And, as we've seen with Sotomayer, some judges aren't opposed to legislating from the bench. All other presidential decisions can be overturned, either immediately by Congress, by the next President/Congress, or by some constitutional challenge. Good or bad, Obama and Bush selected four judges who will likely be justices until most of you are nearing retirement. How's that for power?

6. Actually, I find it difficult to see what the protesters accomplished. They wanted change and they wanted Mubarak out. Now, instead of waiting six months. Ok. He's out. What now? The military is temporarily in control. Initially, at least, the military caretakers are saying all the right things, but this can only go one of two ways: 1. The military maintains order and the status quo until elections which means nothing changes until a good bit after the elections. 2. Military leaders decide running things is pretty good stuff and they cancel the elections to take over. Regrets? You guys are right. We'll just have to wait, but I'm uneasy for them.

7. Either a fetus is a person who deserves protection under the law as an individual, or a fetus is not a person as stated in Roe vs. Wade. I support a woman's right to get an abortion because I don't think a bundle of cells is yet a human being. Roe vs. Wade pretty much has to label a fetus "not a person", doesn't it, since calling it a "thing" instead of a "person" makes abortion more palatable? If there are increased penalties for causing the injury or loss of a wanted fetus, I'm on board with that. But a fetus is not a thing to be aborted or a person who can be murdered based on whether a pregnant woman wants to keep it. "A rose by any other name..."

8. Lance Armstrong is the most drug-tested human being in history. I'd sure like to think he was able to win without cheating. However, if it were possible to know for certain, and if my answer would win me $1M if I was correct, I'd say he cheated. Any competitor at the highest level of any competition must be at his absolute best to simply challenge to win. To win, he must be better than all the other top-level competitors. When it is established that many of those competitors are cheating, we discover that not only did Lance beat the best of the best, he beat them even though many were cheating! Seven years consecutively! I hope definitive proof that he cheated never arises, but deep inside, I sure have doubts.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

My oppinion on this is that it's not alive until the umbilical cord is sevred. Until that point, whatever you want to call 'it' is still part of the mother as it is not able to function individually.

Similarly on that line of thinking, killing an expecting mother is killing one person.
--> although in Canada it wouldn't matter as multiple charges are served simultaneously, not stacked.
ie. killing 2 people is 25-life (same as one, but both served at once) not 50-life or whatever.

There is a difference between the two laws, but the difference isn't the status of the fetus but rather the status of the person committing the act upon the fetus.

The mother is literally biologically not separate from the fetus, and is in an incredibly different position to make decisions regarding it.

Akina: bitch I will stab you in the face