|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Brain fart, I knew the Shia were the ones that claimed that their leaders were direct decedents of Mohammad, and I also remembered Sadam (after the first golf war) "finding" religion and claiming that he was one of these direct decedents of Mohammad. Seems like an even odder claim now as it wouldn't have endeared him to the Sunni.
However while I'm sure there's a lot of foreign fighters I believe that there's at least one former Baathist at or near the head of the Iraqi wing of ISIS, and they're undoubtedly getting aide some someone in the area. Bombing ISIS isn't likely going to dislodge them from the region because they have at the very least some support. Bombing them is more likely going to send more to their side. Also keeping them from spreading might be near impossible at this point without a ground force and the Iraq army is not up to the task.
Best thing they can do at this point is get people to the negotiating table and draw new borders for three new countries.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
It would be nice to get the Shias to accept a moderate government but these these people were violently oppressing their rivals twenty years ago, it's not surprising to see them getting behind this ISIS group that are murdering non-Shia Muslims. A lot of this does go back to the initial stages of the war where the Bath party were basically disbanded and forced out of any and all offices they held. Now that the US forces are gone you have genuine civil war.
However, do you let a group you basically created just starve a whole group of people on top of a mountain to death? I have a hard time disagreeing with Obama's choice this time.
It's certainly worse then arranged marriages in theory, I'm sure there are exceptions where everyone lives happily ever after, but yes, hard to imagine a healthy relationship growing from one started with such an imbalance of power. Course in the part of the world where this is the acceptable I'm sure it's mostly just done out of tradition rather then genuine abduction and rape. Hard to imagine everyone devaluing women enough were fathers wouldn't seek revenge against the tribe of the abductor.
Again I can only apologize, I only just discovered the thread but had limited time. Lord Snow had a very fair account of what happened over the last few days but that little bit jumped out at me and I wondered if I'd missed some news story, or if Snow (being in Israel) might have been given some misinformation. I only had time to scan the first page but when I got back from work I got to read the previous page and that had what I wanted to know.
I just clicked back one page and found the answers I was looking for with my previous question. I apologize for not keeping up with the discussion but I came into this one late.
May I just say that as of right now the discussion seems very calm and peaceful, so kudos to everyone involved.
I really hate Hamas but the idiocy and monstrousness on both sides is sickening. What does Hamas think it's going to accomplish by launching rockets? How does Israel justify killing that many civilians? I'm just horrified by the whole thing.
However I just wanted to jump in here, I haven't read past the first page, but I noticed the OP said "three Jewish kids were kidnapped by Hamas operatives. Kids as in 16 years old"
I haven't been following this story that closely I'll admit, but to my understanding this was a bit of unconfirmed misinformation, the boys were indeed kidnapped and murdered, but I haven't heard it was done by anyone directly linked with Hamas. It's not something I'd say was beneath certain members of Hamas, but in the past they haven't been afraid to admit to something, and so I tend to think that they might not be linked. Certainly the right wing Israeli government likes to say that this was the work of Hamas, the story does play quiet well for them and their base, but as far as I know this is misinformation.
Male hu-man Paladin
Karrin picked up this little fact over four years ago and has kept it to herself ever since. You might remember back when Karrin met with Sebastian? Although you only have to go back two years ago to see where Karrin came close to revealing this secret to the group. It was just after Nari got her new body:
Karrin Kind wrote:
Male hu-man Paladin
O.L.L.I gives Karrin an awkward hug back and gravely introduces himself around. He is cute, in a steamtrunk kind of way, with small vestigial wings and large chibi eyes. Thin pipestem arms and legs complete the look
Didn't you get some hack artist to draw a picture of him? James something . . .
Oooh, I wonder if that has anything to do with that Chinese hacking thing . . .
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The host of this segment had to be one of the most uncharismatic presenters I've seen in a long time. I thought the piece was interesting, I admit that I don't know much of the early 20th century labor movement and I thank you for posting this as I'll probably be reading more about this later, but man that host was awkward.
I see that Anita has been awarded the Ambassador Award from the 2014 Game Developers Choice Awards. I thought it was interesting to hear that "the Last of Us" writer was inspired by her work. Certainly the characters in that story were well written and very well received. It sort of echoes what I was saying about the usefulness of criticism in the locked thread.
This is very sad news if true, I loved Dragon magazine, in no small part because of artists like Tramp. Learning that he's passed is sad, but the fact that he never illustrated anything after leaving Dragon mag is sadder still.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a few posts. While this is the Off Topic forum, let's not get too graphic on the messageboards please.
I thought this might happen. For the record I didn't flag anything but I suspected it was inevitable.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
It's a sad day when what Obama is seen as the left wing, but if that lady is upset about Obama becoming an extension of the Bush government then she'd have really flipped her lid if the actual republican party somehow gained power. At least you guys are getting a very basic improvement in your health care system.
Agreed. I hope it wasn't all work, on a Sunday no less! Anyways take care Pygon and we'll see you in two weeks (if not online before then).
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
I prefer the version I posted. And since this is a thread about Gender and politics I suppose I should say something about the lyrics:
"Cause if you liked it, then you should have put a ring on it
To me that sounds like Beyonce is calling herself an "it" and dehumanizing herself, not to mention suggesting ownership through marriage. Later are the lines:
"I need no permission, did I mention
And although I like the line "I need no permission", but later in the verse she adds "(be)cause you had your turn" suggesting that rather then being a free willed being capable of doing whatever she wants that she's only free to make her own choices now because she's broken up with her man. Anyways I do like the limited freedom the song promotes, that pining over a man that's unwilling to commit is foolish, but the rest of the song seems to promote ugly gender stereotypes. But maybe that's just me.
If you're trying to suggest that Canada has right wing whack jobs, congratulations, it was however a one sided fight as I'd never contest that opinion. What I'm talking about is the conservative government, which as much as I dislike, hasn't acted on any of it's right wing nutbar's opinions despite having the US equivalent of the presidency, house of representatives, and the senate. They've had virtually all the power to do anything for the last three years now and they haven't acted on any of their Right wing impulses. The reason being Harper wants to get elected again and has been trying to rule from the center. The center of Canadian politics are to the left of even your Democratic party.
As to the poll, you're talking about something that hasn't even seen public debate in this country since the last Conservative government (over twenty years ago) and so it's entirely a one sided argument. People's opinions are entirely based on high profile murder cases and US television where the accused is always actually guilty. The problem is that in real life wrongful convictions happen all the time and in the new age of cell phone video police officers are being caught lying, abusing authority, and even breaking the law which in my mind, should the debate be reopened, would quickly sway public opinion back to the 1960s levels of support.
A Man In Black wrote:
You forgot those tax breaks that ate away at the surplus that the Liberals left us with before the subprime mortgage crisis and Harper's desire to snuggle up to Israel.
However Canada is still against the death penalty, doesn't execute it's citizens in over seas drone strikes, does have a progressive tax rate, believes in public health care, believes in separation between church and state, celebrates multiculturalism, and was one of the first countries in the world to legalize same sex marriage. Now I might agree that Harper probably doesn't support some of these things, I seriously doubt however that he'd even try to repeal or change these core Canadian laws and ideals, and while he is trying to be more and more like an American president (it's so cute), he's still got quite a way to go before he matches the policies of Barack Obama.
Well I'm Canadian, so I tend to view the US Democratic party as being uncomfortably right wing, and our right wing "Conservative" party would be seen as wacko lefty pinko communist sympathizers by the American news media.
There's something wrong about asking people who are leaders in their fields for advice about something that's out of their field. If the pope wanted to give me advice about C Programming, I wouldn't pay much attention. Likewise if a religious leader wants to give advice on biology.
Right, but this isn't what religious leaders usually want to consult government over, often it's public policy, and while I might never agree with the pope on certain matters, the thing is popes don't get to where they are by being poor administrators. There's nothing wrong with listening to religious leaders anymore then there's anything wrong with listening to leaders of industry. However I do agree that there's a huge difference between consulting and blindly following the advise of said leaders. We shouldn't base our laws on a bronze age mysticism anymore then we should base our public spending on the free market economies.
There's nothing wrong with asking people that are leaders in their fields for advice. I'm an atheist but if the pope wanted to give me advise I'd be a fool if I didn't at least listen to him. I might not do a single thing he says but there's nothing wrong with listening to people. Besides, just appearing to consult a major religious leader can score points with that religion's followers without actually having to commit to anything. It's sort of how the American Republican party works, they support a government that harbors the rich, takes food (stamps) from the poor, and is adamantly against healing the sick (if they can't pay for it), and yet they claim to be a christian party. It would be a bit like Anthony Bourdain or Andrew Zimmern claiming to be vegans, they eat meat all the time, privately scoff at philosophy and almost never eat strictly vegan meals, but they attend public meetings and condemn other TV food hosts who aren't acting vegan enough.
Yes, this is what I said. The debate exists only as publicity for his "museum" themed fun park. People who buy Ham's books weren't going to listen to anything Nye had to say, but they may have been unaware of Ham's Creation "Museum", and that is the real purpose of the debate.
From what little I've seen, Nye won the news coverage.
I'd hope so. Arguing faith against reason and observation is a practically impossible battle and Nye would have needed to have been a monumentally bad debater to have lost. Knowing that Nye is not only capable of human speech but also pretty articulate left the results of the debate a forgone conclusion for me, but I watched a bit of it anyways.
For those arguing that this debate didn't serve a purpose you're completely incorrect. The Creation "Museum", a wacky theme park (minus the rides I'd assume) needed a bit of publicity, and this debate got quite a bit of buzz around the internet. Ham's goal wasn't to win this debate, I'm sure he's a cynical shill and snake oil sales man like many of these mega church leaders, and drumming up support for his "museum" style theme park and making money hand over fist are his only concerns. Anyone who thinks this guy isn't sticking to the script so he can continue to bilk the sad uneducated masses is the real wackadoo here.
Now if you want to argue that no one was convinced or swayed by this debate you'd be correct. But of course I've never felt that was the point of a debate, usually I see a debate as a chance to understand the other side and maybe find some middle ground that you can agree on. The only time you sway or convince the other side is when the other side comes into a debate completely ignorant of the facts or your position.
From wikipedia: "Brain death is used as an indicator of legal death in many jurisdictions, but it is defined inconsistently. Various parts of the brain may keep living when others die, and the term "brain death" has been used to refer to various combinations. For example, although a major medical dictionary says that "brain death" is synonymous with "cerebral death" (death of the cerebrum), the US National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) system defines brain death as including the brainstem. The distinctions can be important because, for example, in someone with a dead cerebrum but a living brainstem, the heartbeat and ventilation can continue unaided, whereas, in whole-brain death, only life support equipment would keep those functions going."
As you can see it's perfectly possible to be breathing and have a heartbeat, which is one of the definitions of being alive, and still be declared brain dead. What you're quibbling about is the definition of death. With today's technology you can keep someone that's brain dead on life support for a very long time . . . but they're almost certainly never going to recover, unless as I said earlier, they were misdiagnosed.
No, brain dead, from a medical stand point, is completely equal to death. This is maybe one of the reasons there's reluctance to pull the plug so to speak because people hear brain dead and think "That's not completely dead", but from a medical stand point it's the same.
Another thing I should point out, and it's the point of that article, is that brain death is very useful for saving other people's lives because brain dead individuals often have otherwise healthy organs for transplants. What this lawsuit claims is that doctors are too quick to diagnose brain death so they can harvest the body.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
No, I read the article, but you're not getting what I'm saying. Brain dead is a diagnosis. People don't recover from brain death . . . until they do, and then they go back and review and revise the diagnosis. with another quick google I see that there's a lawsuit claiming that 1 in five "brain dead" patients are still alive. I seriously doubt that it's that high, maybe 1 in 500 is a stretch, but regardless this notion that you put forward that brain dead people don't recover is just wrong because there's plenty of examples of people that are declared brain dead recovering. What you're arguing is that when someone has the correct diagnosis of brain death they never recover, which would only be a useful distinction if there weren't so many discrepancies and misdiagnoses, and medicine is full of discrepancies and misdiagnoses. Also remember that if the family from the article I cited had listened to those first four doctors brain death would have been the correct diagnosis because they would have removed him from life support and taken his organs for transplants. There's a reason why people are told to get a second opinion.
Male hu-man Paladin
Hugo Solis wrote:
Right now we have (in no particular order):Karrin Kind - Guy Humual
Ekuur - Bryan
Isaac - James Keegan
Justin Case - Ragadolf
Merle Barer - Kevin Mack
Seph (Merle's familiar) - Kevin Mack
Naridre Ro'Arisahshe - Lynora
Rhiannon d'Deneith - Mark Thomas 66
That's everyone in the group at the moment
Well I can't comment on the whole politics of this case (I do realize that this is Texas though and big parts of it are pretty backwater) I can say that if I were the woman and I thought my child had a good chance of survival and a normal life that I'd have wanted them to do anything possible to save it. The two major differences in these tragic stories, this one and the one out of Canada, is that in Canada we have a fetus that has a good chance of survival and a normal life and we have family members and doctors in agreement over what the late mother would have wanted. While I think politics might have come into play here I don't think that it was entirely a political move.
Also I agree that the Texas hospital made the wrong decision and that they shouldn't have put the family through this but I really don't think this is an entirely black and white scenario.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I don't know, I typed brain death recovery into google and got this as the first result:
Now you could argue that he wasn't given the proper diagnosis . . . but that's pretty much how medicine works, you go to a doctor and they give you a diagnosis based on their knowledge and expertise. Sometimes doctors are wrong. That doesn't change the fact that some people are declared brain dead and yet turn out to be anything but.
The thing is the poor brain dead women in both cases obviously wanted to have children, they intended to carry the child to full term, but sadly they suffered brain damage that in any other era of human history would have meant death for both the mother and unborn child. The real question we have to face is when is it okay to remove someone from life support. We've had dozens of cases where people were thought to be brain dead or in unrecoverable comas but amazingly made full recoveries, but for every one of these miracles there's probably hundreds of cases were the doctors were right.
There are a couple of things at play here, first there is the woman's right to chose, and I like to think that most mothers would want doctors to do anything possible to save their child, but there's also the right to a dignified death. I remember that Terri Schiavo fiasco, the fact she didn't have a living will did compound issues, the fact that she had no way of speaking for herself and because there were to sides that believed that she wanted different things also complicated things, but I think euthanasia should be a right of the terminally ill as long as they have a voice and the cognitive ability to express these wishes, and I think people need to have living wills should something like this happen.
As for the unborn, it should be the mother that decides, the child is essentially part of her body after all, but in the situation were the mother can't decided, then the decision should fall to family. It's really not a simple cut and dry case. I think both eventually saw the correct outcomes but I really can't say that the Texas hospital was completely in the wrong in this one.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Well suppose the fetus were healthy and hadn't suffered extreme oxygen deprivation, I tend to think this would have made the decision to keep her alive far more grey on the morality scale. I don't think the families decision to take her off life support was at all wrong, but I can see why, with another life in play here, the hospital was reluctant to do so. I agree it was wrong, especially seeing as the unborn child's prognoses wasn't a good one, but I can understand the waffling even though I don't support the pro-life movement.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
I'm not sure if there's a right or wrong absolute in this complex issue, but it is nice that the doctors and family are on the same side here. In the other story from the states I think the big issue was the quality of life for the developing fetus which I don't think is a worry here.