The same thing happens with men who are pregnant so it’s fair.
Same thing happens to men who start fights that kill someone.
Men who start fights that end up getting shot don’t face manslaughter charges.
All that said I don’t want to gum up the stupid thread forever discussing this so I’ll just say I think it’s a slippery slope and very difficult to remain consistent with.
Men who start fights that get someone else shot do face charges, manslaughter if the victim dies.
I can’t imagine if you punch me and I shoot and hit ten people that you’re in trouble for all my shooting.
I doubt a bullet is going through nine people.
Are you talking about firing ten shots(or more)? @Silyak continued attacking you while you were shooting at him(he would presumably be no more than 2-3 feet away)? You were so incompetent that you were unable to hit him at that distance, and so careless that you continued wildly shooting in a crowded area?
If @silyak were to pick up his child and use the child as a shield, I imagine he’d be in trouble if you defend yourself by shooting and hit the child.
Well clearly you aren’t using my gun in this hypothetical. You should get one it’s deadly and free! My point was that a guy who punches is not always responsible for what the guy in response does.
I don’t see this as the same thing at all. This is purposefully picking up a child to take a bullet for you as protection. It’s not getting shot in the gut while being pregnant. Like I said I’m not saying I’m correct and that she shouldn’t be charged merely that we don’t do that in other similar scenarios that lead to child death.
I’ll let that be my final response so we can get back to run stupidity articles.
You asked: “At what point is what is inside the woman a person?”
I responded: “Since the beginning of time.”
We’ve gone round and round on this before and continuing the debate with you is pointless since you allude to some platonic realm of forms style definition of “person” that can only be understood by you and not communicated to others.
For example: using your definition, what changes during the trip down the birth canal that changes “what is inside the woman” from “non-person” to “person”.
We’re talking morally/ethically here, not legally. Since you can’t use the legal answer of ‘recognition by the state’ because we’ve already established that when it suits the state it considers “what is inside the woman” as a “person”.
Why don’t we just do away with being an American citizen? What good does it do you anymore? Hell,you can get your drivers license, health care, an even sue that pesky USG. Wait, wait, if you don’t have to be an American citizen to live here, do you still pay federal income tax?
That time the BBC ran a hagiographical piece on Marxism.
Oh for the supposed conservatism of a state run broadcaster.
3 Likes
“Since the beginning of time” means nothing. Humans did not even exist at that point. Also, the concept of what a person and/ or human being is has not remained the same over the centuries.
You mention my definition. What exactly is my definition? Have I ever stated it? No, I have not because I am not arrogant and narcissistic enough to have my own definition of things. I may believe definitions should change and historically they have over time but I would never say, “according to MY definition,” because I accept current definitions as the definitions since that is the only way we can communicate in a way we can all understand.
And if we are talking morally and ethically, then there is still no definitive answer. So when you say, “since the beginning of time,” you are stating your belief and not a fact.
Whatever non-absolute.
I… I think… I’m falling in love! This time I know it’s for reeeaal!
1 Like
Best candidate ever.
1 Like
The rent is too damn high man is still the best ever. When it comes to looks, subjects, and party he’s my all time champ. You must be a damn landlord!
2 Likes
My mistake. I was talking about presidential candidates. If he were that, he would have my vote over the lady!
She’s hot in a “dumb slasher movie chick number 3 who gets a machete in the head” kind of way.
I think I’m going to call her “Nancy” from now on.
Laughed a little too hard at this
1 Like
That’s true. The fact that the other lady’s charge was dropped tells me a jury decided she was, in this case.
Okay. Change it to @Silyak attacking you while his child is with him. He repeatedly hits you, and forces you to fire a shot at him in an attempt to end the attack. Your shot misses him by inches and strikes his child. Yes, I think it’s very possible that @Silyak would face manslaughter charges for what happened to his child.
1 Like
According to the Wall Street Journal, former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick has persuaded Nike to scrap plans to sell a shoe featuring the 13-star version of the American flag, known as the Betsy Ross flag. Kaepernick informed Nike that the 13-star version of the flag constitutes an “offensive symbol” due to its connection to an age of slavery. Nike agreed, and the shoe has been pulled.
The design of the flag represents the original 13 American colonies. More stars were added in 1795, after Vermont and Kentucky joined the nation. Some extremist groups have appropriated the the Betsy Ross flag as a symbol of opposition to diversity.
Really? Fuck Nike, Fuck CK.
3 Likes