Profile for Drew


Recent posts

Pages

AuthorRecent posts
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #104
Excalibur, you may as well stop participating in this discussion now if you're unable or (hopefully for you just) unwilling to engage in abstract reasoning.

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 15:23: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #102
I don't, especially given the ridiculously small cost to an individual involved in buckling up. It doesn't pass the common law Judge Learned Hand balancing test, where you weigh the cost of the remedial action (P) against the probability of an adverse event (B) multiplied by the potential liability (L); or P = BL. Here, the cost to all drivers and passengers of simply putting a seatbelt on (P) is significantly lower than the potential liability (I assume you aren't going to argue against the great difference between the outcomes of an auto accident where a person is wearing a seatbelt versus one where a person is not)(L) times the likelihood of an accident occurring, which is not infrequent (P). Now, suppose instead that a state legislature passed a law saying that all occupants of a car must wear body armor made out of titanium/some very expensive material, and that the net increase in safety from merely buckling up to this standard made only a small improvement in safety in the outcomes of accidents. There, the price of the remedial action would be disproportionately higher than the potential liability, and so doesn't make sense to regulate.

In court, if a victim of an accident is proven not to have been wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident, it seriously mitigates the damages that person can expect to recover because of this formula.

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 15:28: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #97
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

A predominately homosexual society? What kind of hogwash is that? A predominately homosexual society does not exist because...
Drumroll...
It takes a heterosexual relationship to produce a human being. In your situation all the homosexuals would die out, leaving the straight people behind.

As if forcing the heterosexuals to reproduce to the point of exhaustion would be an option.

Hypotheticals don't have to be plausible; they just have to be illustrative. Unfortunately, sometimes they fail due to a lack of imagination on the part of their recipients.

quote:
I pulled my father's law dictionary off the shelf. It's definition of marriage repeatedly uses the phrases "man and woman", and "male and female."
No kidding! However, Black's Law Dictionary doesn't carry constitutional, statutory, or common law authority. Regardless, this is completely irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. We are all aware of what the current law is; what we're discussing is whether the current law is right/correct/constitutional/just.

quote:
Someone mentioned that polygamy was banned to drive the Mormons out. Because polygamy is banned or at least frowned upon in much of the world, I doubt that is the case.
It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks if that was the actual reason used here.

Please, please think before you type.

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 13:11: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #95
quote:
Originally written by Mallorquin Slef:

I'm not truly convinced that seatbelt laws actually reduce the ambulance and hospital requirements to an extent that makes them meaningful forms of improving the health of others. Wearing a seatbelt is pretty much good for the wearer only. If an adult who knows exactly what the risks are wants to go beltless, I can't really see how the government should be able to overrule the decision.
It goes beyond that, though, Alo, to overall increases in insurance premiums, the toll it takes on a family's finances when it has to pay for relatively greater medical expenses, or in the worst case scenario, start learning to get by without a breadwinner, etc.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #91
Right - and what I'm saying is that the government should not have anything to do with regulating society purely for moral purposes, beyond those enshrined in the Constitution. Regulation that exists purely for moral purposes inherently infringes upon personal liberty, limited by natural law, that is protected by the Constitution.

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 11:00: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #89
Stillness, while health and safety are moral issues in a sense, they are more importantly also relevant to preserving life, which is generally a right that the Constitution preserves. Further, these laws serve the purpose of limiting the great financial cost to others, particularly family, caused when someone dies or is severely injured in a car accident on account of not wearing a seatbelt/helmet/etc. Beyond that, driver's licenses and the right to operate an automobile are privileges, not rights, and so fully subject to regulation.

You are right - I'm interested for personal moral reasons in people being allowed to marry others of the same sex. That doesn't change the fact that the only reason for a prohibition against this practice has a moral, particularly religious basis, and that such a prohibition interferes with personal liberty.

To the extent that sodomy laws and hetero marital privilege exist purely for moral reasons, I do see them the same way - morally-based discrimination against personal liberty, and therefore inherently unconstitutional. Both sets of laws interfere with private matters - marriage is a deeply private concern.

Extreme secularism is a misnomer. It's rather an interest in personal liberty, tempered by natural law to do no harm to others, that I and others here promote. If that's "extreme," then you're living in an extreme nation, friend.

Everyone is of course free to vote based on their values; I wouldn't have it otherwise. However, they aren't entitled to enact law that runs contrary to rights guaranteed under the Constitution, unless the vote is for purposes of amending it.

"It’s actually the religious whose rights are infringed upon regarding these issues there."

I'm calling your bluff. How are the rights of the religious infringed upon at all by our nation? We're not talking the Waco standoff here, we're talking about your day-to-day life right to practice your religion as you see fit. The only thing that is being "infringed" upon is your ability to use instruments and resources of the state to promote your faith, and as the Establishment Clause has been interpreted by the Court, no one has that "right."

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 10:48: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #80
It is a pretty gender-neutral name. Now, if it was Arancaytra, that would be a dead giveaway for a woman. How about Arancaytor? No confusion there. :P
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Geneforge For PS2 in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #7
Actually, I think the interface would be pretty amenable to a console's controls. It wouldn't be quite identical - there would be more menus involved, much like in the Ultima or Dragon Quest series, but it would work.

I think though that the main issue is that the ideal consoles for Jeff's style of games, by their nature old-fashioned, have come and gone. :)
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #64
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

[QUOTE]The constitution does not allow for the federal government to have jurisdiction over such matters. However, if an individual state feels that it should be a crime, then it has the power to do so.
The U.S. Constitution trumps state constitutions, explicitly through the 14th Amendment. If the Supreme Court were to decide that it is among an individual's constitutionally protected rights to marry whomever they want, then the states couldn't do anything about it, short of trying to secede again. The US Gov, with its tax authority could also recognize civil unions for purposes of the income and estate tax purposes, and the states couldn't do anything about it.

EDIT: Hmm - I guess Nevada really is relatively more "self-reliant" than some of its neighbors. One could argue persuasively though that it benefits from the largesse of residents of other states to a degree unmatched by other states, and were other states to permit gambling to the extent Nevada does, it would quickly lose its advantage.

[ Saturday, December 08, 2007 16:08: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
OOC: The Vale RP in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #46
Salmon, Salmon - this lich is different. Just like the legion of outcast Chaotic Good drow (a disproportionate number of whom wield two scimitars...) running around out there are different.

Excalibur, if you're 6' and 128 lbs., you have some filling out to do. The gym awaits! :)

[ Saturday, December 08, 2007 13:53: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #59
Unlike the seatbelt law, which has a health and safety rationale, the same sex marriage prohibition has only a moral rationale for its justification.

A similar basis was used for laws banning sodomy, and this was struck down by Justice Kennedy in Lawrence v. Texas. For similar reasons, I don't think that anti-same-sex-marriage laws pass the Constitutional smell test. I think that the government does not have any business regulating moral matters, and for purposes of the law, who one chooses to marry is purely a moral issue.

As far as laws governing estates goes, Stillness, it's not as simple as granting one's partner durable power of attorney. While someone who wanted to be sure to pass on a legacy to a partner could do so through an inter vivos, revocable trust, why should they have to? The laws of intestacy in all 50 automatically award a marital share to a surviving spouse, but this doesn't apply for domestic partners. Sure, you could say that this applies to both unmarried same sex and hetero couples, but it seems particularly unfair when but for laws prohibiting marriage, the same sex couple would choose marry. Furthermore, wills are of little value to same sex couples when it's so easy for disinherited family to challenge the validity of a will on the basis of the "undue influence" of a partner, and courts in many states are happy to hear that challenge.

You seem to be saying: where is the harm? The answer is that homosexuals, when it comes to trying to serve in the military, hold a job, or form a family, are treated as second-class citizens, based on a lifestyle that you probably view as something that should just be "controlled." The effect of these laws is to punish homosexual behavior and reward heterosexual behavior. My question is: what Constitutionally-based business does the government have regulating this behavior? I believe none at all.

---

And Wow! Excalibur bringing up social contract theory. I'm impressed. Just don't get too libertarian before you learn how much of your life in Nevada is possible on account of taxes redistributed from wealthier states. Your song will likely change if you learn how much the price of water alone in Nevada is subsidized.

[ Saturday, December 08, 2007 13:42: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
OOC: The Vale RP in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #14
Yeah, make him at least 170. He's gotta have some muscle! We know you're probably enamoured with spikey-haired, teenage cRPG protagonists, but it's getting a little cliched, don't you think?

IMAGE(http://kol.coldfront.net/thekolwiki/images/d/d8/Protag.gif)

[ Friday, December 07, 2007 07:19: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #28
Procreation wasn't the motivation for the tax incentives. It had a lot more to do with recognizing the particular cultural norms of the time. Traditionally, there was only one income earner per family. Because that income earner had more people to support than an unmarried individual, the government decided to create the "married" and "head of household" tax rates to ease the burden, with respectively adjusted tax rates, standard deductions, and personal exemptions. Times however, have changed - it seems there's hardly a family anymore that doesn't have two income earners, and therefore, two taxpayers. As such, the marriage categorization became a "penalty," since the standard deductions of two individuals together filing seperately were greater than the single marital deduction they would receive filing jointly. The tax code has since been adjusted to at least restore balance, but times and understandings have changed.

If the government eliminated hetero marital privileges, more people wouldn't all of the sudden turn gay. That's like saying it would rain more often if they stopped making umbrellas.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #8
Looks like someone's discovered "Bowling for Columbine." Seriously though, Excalibur, your post is dripping with inferential the-nation-isn't-Christian-enough-osity, and to that I say, TSST! Furthermore, this discussion has already been held, and you were even a part of it, technically. Don't beat a dead horse!

[ Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:18: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
OOC: The Vale RP in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #1
Boy, feelings sure won't get involved with this one. Have fun! :rolleyes:

--------------------
In today’s America, there are more World of Warcraft players than farmers.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Urgent in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #2
I think they may actually process each transaction individually, so yeah - go ahead and email.

--------------------
In today’s America, there are more World of Warcraft players than farmers.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
YES!!!!!!! in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #4
"Unfortunate" to go to Cuba? I for one will be supremely jealous if you do.

--------------------
In today’s America, there are more World of Warcraft players than farmers.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Eat It! in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #29
I love Culver's, but it's in Wisconsin, and I'm not.

--------------------
In today’s America, there are more World of Warcraft players than farmers.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Meadows of Heaven in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #8
Omitted questions I didn't feel like answering.

1. What was the last song you listened to?
"Yoshimi vs. the Giant Pink Robots" by The Flaming Lips
2. What was the last song / album you bought?
Bought? Probably Green Day's "American Idiot"
3. What is your favorite song?
Currently? "Girl in the Room" by Flight of the Conchords. Ev4r? Probably "Lithium" by Nirvana. This is a tough question.
4. What is your favorite record album?
Weezer's blue album.
5. What song do you think has the best music?
Currently, I've been enjoying "Scenic World" (the instrumental, not synthesized version) by Beirut. I also really like "Two Step" by Dave Matthews Band. I don't think there's any one song that qualifies, though. In most cases there are one or two great moments in any given good song. For example, I think the best intro ever is in "Crazy Train" by Ozzy.
6. What song do you think has the best lyrics? Right now that's the aforementioned "Girl in the Room."
10. Is there any song that has ever just hit you like a brick? What was it, and why?
That I was blown away by? "Lithium" by Nirvana, I think for the sound of it - the way it resonated in my ears back in high school was intoxicating. Best listened to on headsets or in a car with a great stereo.
11. What is that one song that you just can't stand?
"Music for a Found Harmoneum," or whatever that one tune is. My wife loves playing it over and over, and it drives me insane. Also, "No Scrubs" by TLC got WAY too much air time the spring/summer it came out.
12. What artist do you absolutely hate?
I don't really hate any one artist. Probably some R&B guy, or contemporary country singer, or something. I feel real, real sorry for Britney Spears, but that doesn't come out of hate. I guess I'm not crazy about Stone Temple Pilots - I thought their music was a little too derived from Pearl Jam, but not as good, and that's saying something.

--------------------
In today’s America, there are more World of Warcraft players than farmers.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
*becomes violently ill, vomits profusely* in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #9
I think it's an overreaction. Whatever facebook may say in their terms, if you quit using facebook and request that they stop disseminating your information, they would likely comply. If it really was as bad as all that, another wing of the gov - the Federal Trade Commission - would likely have something to say about it.

Hate to break it to you guys, but beyond the walls of your home and any closed containers you may have with you, you generally have very little right to privacy. The 4th Amendment, for example, doesn't protect information such as the balance and transactions of your bank accounts. The Fed doesn't even need a warrant for those. But then again, if you're living a law-abiding life, you really have little cause for alarm.

--------------------
In today’s America, there are more World of Warcraft players than farmers.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
A lot of game ready character models are on sale (50% off) in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #7
Yeah - the publishers actually want their products to sell, and appealing to the prurient interest is an easy win.

--------------------
In today’s America, there are more World of Warcraft players than farmers.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Eat It! in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #5
Taco Bell: now, then, forever, always.

--------------------
In today’s America, there are more World of Warcraft players than farmers.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
I'm back in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #52
What I find is amusing is that Nija's account number is leetspeak for TSST!, which is the noise that the Dog Whisperer makes when dominating problem dogs.

--------------------
In today’s America, there are more World of Warcraft players than farmers.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Did Thralni leave? in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #6
Thuryl really isn't what one would consider a typical drama queen though.

--------------------
In today’s America, there are more World of Warcraft players than farmers.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Endeavour in General
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #18
For pure, unadulterated fun, I think undergrad reigns supreme. It is unlikely there will ever be another time in your life when you have so much freedom from authority combined with so little responsibility or so few demands on your time.

--------------------
In today’s America, there are more World of Warcraft players than farmers.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00

Pages