Sheesh, looks like i missed some good times here. Thread too sexual? Now i feel sad i missed that part
That'll teach me for going to college and not keeping up to date on a message board for a card game i haven't played in years.
And oh, so much drama. Glad to think about how i've put my days of getting wrapped up in stupid online drama behind me.
So, what's up everyone?
College is all right, haven't really been doing a whole lot. I don't go to class all the time because most of my classes are jokes. I'm home today, skipping classes, since i've got a concert to go to tonight. KMFDM with Acumen Nation.
Um, still making music. Including some pretty weird stuff. I'll be getting a microphone in the next day or two, so there's definitely going to be a track that's just me beatboxing.
Seriously, though, it seems some of you guys are getting a bit worked up about things. Chill. Trust me, it's not worth it getting upset about this stuff.
Some of you may not know or remember me, but I used to be friends with this clan back on news. (It may have been 2 years ago or something.) This clan was actually one of the two clans I was "actually" friends with (the other being forum pirates).
Anyways, I recently resigned up and I wanted to befriend this clan. The only person that may remember me here is MD, but a start is a start I guess.
OMFG, IT'S STEVE!!1!1!1!!1111
It's been a while demi-queer. Still making music and stuff? I've been working on some music (see link in sig).
So, i haven't been up to much lately. Graduated about a week and a half ago. Haven't bothered getting a job yet. College is over a month away.
Haven't been working on much music lately. Have been working on my "band's" website.
Been watching quite a few movies lately and let me tell you that the remake of Dawn of the Dead blows.
Hello, everyone. It's been a long time since i've posted on Salvation, and an even longer time since i posted on an SR thread.
For those of you who don't remember, my name is Rob (which i suppose should be obvious). I'm an old school SR member, being a member since early on in the clan (the only reason i wasn't an original member is because i was in the Exiled at the time), and i believe i was a friend when the clan started.
On News, i went by the name "Jim_the_Impaler". I'd like to put that behind me. Let's just say i was a mod, then i stopped being a mod and had some issues with the mod staff (see, i can relate, Xen) and ended up getting myself banned...this was a long time ago if i remember correctly.
So, then around January i stumbled onto Salvation and posted here for a little while, then disappeared.
So, yeah, i'm Rob. I'll be graduating from high school in a week. Next year i'm off to college at the University at Buffalo. I spend my time making music. You can find out some more about that through the link in my sig (hint, hint).
So, how is everybody. It's been a while. Does anybody remember me?
The husband cannot prove she wants to die, and the family cannot prove she wants to live.
He doesn't have to prove that because, legally, it's his job to decide on her behalf (and testimony indicates that what she told others of her wishes is consistent with the decision her husband has made)
The only right being violated is if she is killed and her life is taken away.
Wrong. If congress were to force her to be kept alive, her right to refuse medical treatment (and her husband's legal right to make her medical decisions on her behalf) would definitely be violated.
Quote from Grobyc »
Yes, but then if I trapped you in a room without food and water, would that be a "legal" way to kill you? Probably not. And as ButtBlues has said, no one has any evidence to prove that she wants to live or die which is why living wills are there.
That's a bad analogy. It's "her" decision to refuse medical treatment. Since she cannot make that decision, her husband has the right to make it for her. That is different from having a third party keep one from having food or water without legal consent.
Since Terri Schiavo did not have a living will, her husband is making her medical decisions for her. Who would you have make the medical decisions of someone who cannot make them on their own? The government? The hospital?
If the husband is in financial 'trouble', then he could simply divorce her (which he should have already if he hasn't) and just leave her up to her family.
Obviously, he doesn't want to divorce her and have that choice go to her parents.
I would like the feeding tube back, however,
Why?
it doesn't seem like the judge is going to change his mind about the subject after several appeals.
Since no reason's been given for any decisions to change, the odds are against them changing.
What I don't understand is that if they wanted her to die, why not by lethal injection?
It's illegal. Euthanasia isn't legal in Florida.
Afterall, starving someone to death is on its own murder. If it's going to be murder anyway, why not do it in a faster and less painful (if given that she could feel) process?
It's refusing medical treatment, which is legal. The husband is making medical decisions for his wife as she is unable to make them on her own. Therefore, legally, the husband can make those decisions by proxy.
It's unfair to warn him for something he (presumably) didn't really know was wrong.
I would think that if an administrator doesn't know what's wrong, we've got a really big problem here. There is no good reason for an administrator to not know the rules and not know what's warnable. That would reflect complete incompetence.
I think the most important point here is that congress is seriously out of line. Congress should have absolutely no say in what happens to Terry Schiavo. Sure, the courts should maybe get involved to decide whether her husband or her parents are the ones to make that decision, since she is unable to. However, anything beyond that is an abuse of power and an intrusion into the rights of individuals to make decisions they have a right to make.
Back on MTGnews, i had a ppd between 20 and 25 for quite a long time.
Anyway, as for the problems people have with the custom tag system, why not let everyone have custom tag? Or let everyone have custom tag after a relatively insignificant number of posts like 5 or 10 or something like that. That way there'd definitely be no spamming to get to tag and it's entirely objective.
If relations are so bad, then the US government (and the Muslim world) should be doing everything they can to try and repair problems. I also don't agree with people being given positions as a reward for loyalty - but unfortunately, that's how politics works.
Of course they should, but i really don't think it makes much difference if the undersecretary of state for blah blah blah is Karen Hughes or Joe Arab-American. The point remains they'll still be an american toady, and i doubt they'd get much respect in the Arab world, unless there was something real being done other than getting someone to take on this job that literally no one has ever heard of.
And of course the idea of loyalty being used to get positions is kind of unsettling. It's kind of like a modern day spoils system.
Then of course there is the Paul Wolfowitz appointment. Paul has been appointed to be the President of WorldBank. What qualifies Paul to run this enormouse economic institution? Well apperantly his experiance in running an enormouse intelligence institution.
The Pentagon is not intelligence. Wolfowitz is Deputy Secretary of Defense. So, you mean an enormous military institution.
Same size=same category. Thats right. Mr Wolfowitz has no economic backround to draw on. Oh well, I'm sure he's a fast learner. After all, he totally called that whole "Iraq will fund it's own reconstruction" thing. Or how about when he said it was "Inconcievable that it would take more troops to keep the peace on the ground in Iraq than it would take to topple Saddam's regiem".
So, you watch the Daily Show.
I simply cannot understand how this administration can continue to appoint these sort of people,
I wouldn't think it'd be that big of a surprise. It's not like it's inconsistent with past actions.
and yet there is still no backlash.
That shouldn't be a surprise either.
Sure, you here all the time how Dem.s in Senate plan to oppose the nominations, but I think we can all see how well those plans are going.
The Senate Democrats are a joke. That's not really a surprise, either.
So, Bush appoints people to positions and it's questionable whether these people will be able to do their jobs, or do them well. Seems pretty insignificant in comparison to some other things that have happened.
It's also not like, politically, any of these nominations/appointments are inconsistent with the Bush administration's politics/policies.
Also, your objections betray your perspective on things.
The fact that you oppose an FCC chair who favors media consolidations means that you assume media consolidation is a bad thing. While i do agree with that perspective, not everyone does, such as the Bush Administration.
As for John Bolton, why not have a UN ambassador who is not a huge fan of the UN. It definitely reflects the Bush Administration's policy. Doesn't seem that stupid to have a representative of the US government actually represent the US government.
As for Paul Wolfowitz, he doesn't have a whole lot of experience with economics. Well, there are people at the World Bank who do. Well it might be a good thing to have a World Bank president who knows about economics, i don't think most people know enough about the running of the World Bank to know whether or not it is a necessity.
As for Karen Hughes, US relations with the Muslim world are so ****ty that i don't really think it matters whether a woman or a man is the representative to the Muslim world. Besides, Bush is rewarding her for her loyalty over the years.
Also, as for the "Freud is bunk" motion, the way that we discover things is, for the most part, by watching them go wrong.
Not everything Freud says is not necessary garbage. However, you cannot just take what Freud says and accept it as the way things are. Saying that Freud's research indicates that people are completely motivated by sex completely ignores all of the flaws in his research and the decades of criticism into his own analysis.
We knew of the existance and function of white blood cells for many decades only because we knew that people without them died quickly. Studying the problems generated within a system help to define it.
It can help to define a system, yes. However, actually defining a system is something completely different.
Also, for the asexuals, I stated sexual pleasure. Some people feel that the best way to find orgasmic sexual pleasure is by following the light of God into Heaven where their dreams will be reality.
Asexual != celibate. Someone who is asexual (though it is an ill-defined term, in the context i am using it) is someone who has no sexual desires. If someone does not have sexual desires, can sex be pleasurable to them? And please state what you think sexual pleasure is, especially if it has nothing to do with sex.
As for celibate people, some people might feel sexual pleasure in not having sex. But what if they don't?
And people who cannot have children can still experience sexual pleasure.
Interesting. I said nothing about children, yet this was lumped in with what i had to say. So, what the hell are you talking about?
I advise you to read the thread before you post, especially any thread that mentions Freud, since his name implies a lot, and there will be little time for repetition.
People want sex. They will do anything to get it. No action, from driving your kids to soccer practice to reading poetry at the old folks home, is without intent to get laid.
Can you justify this? Seriously, is there anything more to this than just saying "people do everything they do because of sex".
What about self-proclaimed asexuals (meaning people with no sexual desires or urges)? What about celibate people? If someone does not desire sex, then how are their actions motivated by it? Obviously they could be "lying to themself" but that's an argument you can't really back up (unless you assume your thesis is true, which you can't do).
Plastik: Freud studied abnormal people (by this, i mean people with psychological issues). Just because Freud's studies indicated fixations on sex does not mean it can be generalized to a population that Freud's studies were not representative of.
I was Jim_the_Impaler on news (along with some other aliases). Note the drastic change in posting habits. Hell, even after not posting there for almost a year and a half my ppd count is still a lot higher than it is here.
That'll teach me for going to college and not keeping up to date on a message board for a card game i haven't played in years.
And oh, so much drama. Glad to think about how i've put my days of getting wrapped up in stupid online drama behind me.
So, what's up everyone?
College is all right, haven't really been doing a whole lot. I don't go to class all the time because most of my classes are jokes. I'm home today, skipping classes, since i've got a concert to go to tonight. KMFDM with Acumen Nation.
Um, still making music. Including some pretty weird stuff. I'll be getting a microphone in the next day or two, so there's definitely going to be a track that's just me beatboxing.
Seriously, though, it seems some of you guys are getting a bit worked up about things. Chill. Trust me, it's not worth it getting upset about this stuff.
OMFG, IT'S STEVE!!1!1!1!!1111
It's been a while demi-queer. Still making music and stuff? I've been working on some music (see link in sig).
So, i haven't been up to much lately. Graduated about a week and a half ago. Haven't bothered getting a job yet. College is over a month away.
Haven't been working on much music lately. Have been working on my "band's" website.
Been watching quite a few movies lately and let me tell you that the remake of Dawn of the Dead blows.
For those of you who don't remember, my name is Rob (which i suppose should be obvious). I'm an old school SR member, being a member since early on in the clan (the only reason i wasn't an original member is because i was in the Exiled at the time), and i believe i was a friend when the clan started.
On News, i went by the name "Jim_the_Impaler". I'd like to put that behind me. Let's just say i was a mod, then i stopped being a mod and had some issues with the mod staff (see, i can relate, Xen) and ended up getting myself banned...this was a long time ago if i remember correctly.
So, then around January i stumbled onto Salvation and posted here for a little while, then disappeared.
So, yeah, i'm Rob. I'll be graduating from high school in a week. Next year i'm off to college at the University at Buffalo. I spend my time making music. You can find out some more about that through the link in my sig (hint, hint).
So, how is everybody. It's been a while. Does anybody remember me?
He doesn't have to prove that because, legally, it's his job to decide on her behalf (and testimony indicates that what she told others of her wishes is consistent with the decision her husband has made)
Wrong. If congress were to force her to be kept alive, her right to refuse medical treatment (and her husband's legal right to make her medical decisions on her behalf) would definitely be violated.
That's a bad analogy. It's "her" decision to refuse medical treatment. Since she cannot make that decision, her husband has the right to make it for her. That is different from having a third party keep one from having food or water without legal consent.
Since Terri Schiavo did not have a living will, her husband is making her medical decisions for her. Who would you have make the medical decisions of someone who cannot make them on their own? The government? The hospital?
Obviously, he doesn't want to divorce her and have that choice go to her parents.
Why?
Since no reason's been given for any decisions to change, the odds are against them changing.
It's illegal. Euthanasia isn't legal in Florida.
It's refusing medical treatment, which is legal. The husband is making medical decisions for his wife as she is unable to make them on her own. Therefore, legally, the husband can make those decisions by proxy.
I would think that if an administrator doesn't know what's wrong, we've got a really big problem here. There is no good reason for an administrator to not know the rules and not know what's warnable. That would reflect complete incompetence.
Anyway, as for the problems people have with the custom tag system, why not let everyone have custom tag? Or let everyone have custom tag after a relatively insignificant number of posts like 5 or 10 or something like that. That way there'd definitely be no spamming to get to tag and it's entirely objective.
Of course they should, but i really don't think it makes much difference if the undersecretary of state for blah blah blah is Karen Hughes or Joe Arab-American. The point remains they'll still be an american toady, and i doubt they'd get much respect in the Arab world, unless there was something real being done other than getting someone to take on this job that literally no one has ever heard of.
And of course the idea of loyalty being used to get positions is kind of unsettling. It's kind of like a modern day spoils system.
The Pentagon is not intelligence. Wolfowitz is Deputy Secretary of Defense. So, you mean an enormous military institution.
So, you watch the Daily Show.
I wouldn't think it'd be that big of a surprise. It's not like it's inconsistent with past actions.
That shouldn't be a surprise either.
The Senate Democrats are a joke. That's not really a surprise, either.
So, Bush appoints people to positions and it's questionable whether these people will be able to do their jobs, or do them well. Seems pretty insignificant in comparison to some other things that have happened.
It's also not like, politically, any of these nominations/appointments are inconsistent with the Bush administration's politics/policies.
Also, your objections betray your perspective on things.
The fact that you oppose an FCC chair who favors media consolidations means that you assume media consolidation is a bad thing. While i do agree with that perspective, not everyone does, such as the Bush Administration.
As for John Bolton, why not have a UN ambassador who is not a huge fan of the UN. It definitely reflects the Bush Administration's policy. Doesn't seem that stupid to have a representative of the US government actually represent the US government.
As for Paul Wolfowitz, he doesn't have a whole lot of experience with economics. Well, there are people at the World Bank who do. Well it might be a good thing to have a World Bank president who knows about economics, i don't think most people know enough about the running of the World Bank to know whether or not it is a necessity.
As for Karen Hughes, US relations with the Muslim world are so ****ty that i don't really think it matters whether a woman or a man is the representative to the Muslim world. Besides, Bush is rewarding her for her loyalty over the years.
Not everything Freud says is not necessary garbage. However, you cannot just take what Freud says and accept it as the way things are. Saying that Freud's research indicates that people are completely motivated by sex completely ignores all of the flaws in his research and the decades of criticism into his own analysis.
It can help to define a system, yes. However, actually defining a system is something completely different.
Asexual != celibate. Someone who is asexual (though it is an ill-defined term, in the context i am using it) is someone who has no sexual desires. If someone does not have sexual desires, can sex be pleasurable to them? And please state what you think sexual pleasure is, especially if it has nothing to do with sex.
As for celibate people, some people might feel sexual pleasure in not having sex. But what if they don't?
Interesting. I said nothing about children, yet this was lumped in with what i had to say. So, what the hell are you talking about?
I did read the thread. Don't be condescending.
Can you justify this? Seriously, is there anything more to this than just saying "people do everything they do because of sex".
What about self-proclaimed asexuals (meaning people with no sexual desires or urges)? What about celibate people? If someone does not desire sex, then how are their actions motivated by it? Obviously they could be "lying to themself" but that's an argument you can't really back up (unless you assume your thesis is true, which you can't do).
Plastik: Freud studied abnormal people (by this, i mean people with psychological issues). Just because Freud's studies indicated fixations on sex does not mean it can be generalized to a population that Freud's studies were not representative of.