Today's current temperature is 25 degrees. However it's only going to get lower.
Today's current wind chill temperature is 8 degrees. However it's only going to get windier.
ugh. Wind.
The wind and I have always been at odds, but usually when I am on my bike, not when I am naked.
I think I'll base my mythic wizard off Gandalf. Especially at the higher mythic tiers.Oh okay, it's going to be like that is it.
dammit, get out of the thread you lecherous will worker!
Lighting them up, boss!
Full spread, fritzy.
Eh you just need to tell me it's against the law, I generally won't do it. I don't need to know the reason why. That's for the parliament to figure out when they make laws.
that is pretty unwise, and the reason why I am non lawful.
The winter schedule is something I'm going to have to get used to.
I think I'll base my mythic wizard off Gandalf. Especially at the higher mythic tiers.Oh okay, it's going to be like that is it.
dammit, get out of the thread you lecherous will worker!
Come on, Dalamar. Let's gettim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll take the first shot! I've been looking forward to this!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If rebellion never occurred…
It's call the 'Right of Rebellion' and its actually "quite old hat*" in political philosophy, being discussed somewhat vigorously during medieval times.
*Attempted translation of a Danish figure of speech...it didn't come across so well
I'd be amember of theBritishgovernment…subject (pre 1949 definition)
Eh you just need to tell me it's against the law, I generally won't do it. I don't need to know the reason why…
I'd say somewhat unwise Kitty.
Laws 'ought to' be challenged continually to insure that they keep relevancy and veracity in the face of political, social, technological and philosophical changes in any given society.If a law doesn't seem just I don't think it should be obeyed…
Countless theories have tries to narrow down, just what in fact is 'just' and they aren't all complementary…
Unfortunately, In my humble opinion, the very concept of 'just' is one fraught with philosophical peril. It always seem to beg the question of: "Just, for whom?"
Of course how much law is actually necessary well...different individuals would say different things.
Tn different times, at different places…
Its an important questions, I'm just afraid that there isn't really a universal answer, that could possibly satisfy every possible premutation of it.…I see a lot of problems with people being treated equally I suspect that has to do with peoples definition of equal treatment. example of difference in equality say a speeding ticket fine. lets say its especially egregious and it costs 500 one person this may be a huge hit and for another it might be like pocket change. So its a extreme punishment for one and nothing for another
Doesn't the problem actually lie in the dissonance created by conflating conceptional universal with a nominal object?
I mean two people are 'people' (a universal) until we choose to see them as having individual attributes and they then increasingly become distinct from each other.Its related to the idea that "You should treat everyone the same way"
in which the hoped for goal is some form of egalitarian treatment, but it makes the mistake of making 'everyone' seem 'more equal' simply by treating them as a 'universal' for said egalitarian treatment.
whereas some people would recognize that 'everyone' isn't an 'equal group' but might contain people who are more or less in need of being treated equally due to particular, personal or societal circumstances.
...
I don't do the sit in council chambers and dance the political game well...
You sure?
I could see you as a vizier cat…though you might be a little too righteous and honest for your own good ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love this guy, tell me he is short and easily befuddled.NPC: The Mayor Of OthertownI like that mayor. But I've always liked otters and a bipedial ones tickle me. I mean how often do you see an otter with a pipe and a monocle?
Yes.
They really need a Windows checkbox for, "Don't be unfathomably stupid".
ALL my notifications appear in the lower right corner, so they frequently overlap. If I close one to get to the next one, Windows sees that my mouse is in the notifications area, and says, "Oh, he must not have really wanted to close that notification! I'll pop it up again!"
And even if I patiently wait for it to go away, then go back to get at the new one, nope! That original, first notification, no matter how trivial, has priority for a good 30 seconds. So I just have to sit there, waiting to get at the important notification, because the trivial one just WON'T GO AWAY!!!
In particular, my VPN is being a little shaky this morning, so every 15-20 seconds it has to reconnect. Instead of a simple, "Your VPN is shaky, please be patient while we fix it," I get a, "Reconnecting VPN" notification every 5-10 seconds, for minutes at a time, blocking all other notifications. A simple, "Tell me once, then shut up about it for at least an hour," checkbox would be nice as well...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since we're being all political all of a sudden, is there anything more vile than Flexible Spending Accounts?
For those not in the U.S., in addition to all the other nonsense we have to deal with in being an insurance-based health care country, in general our medical payments are not tax-deductible... unless you pre-calculate how much you think you'll spend and set aside that money in a pre-ordained "Flexible Spending Account". The idea being, "Oh, medical care shouldn't be taxed, but we're going to make you set aside the money for it ahead of time."
So not execrable yet...
...except that if you don't use the money, the company that manages the account pockets it.
Yes. You heard that right. "I think I will spend $2000 on medical care this year. I'll put $2000 in my FSA so I don't have to pay taxes on it. That will save me $500 in taxes! Woo hoo!"
"What's that? I only spent $1200 this year? And the FSA management company is pocketing the other $800? WTF?!?!?!?"
Needless to say, I don't participate in FSAs.
GothBard uses one for her public transportation, but we're just finding out right now that our balance is close to $1000 and even though it rolls over, it doesn't roll over indefinitely and they'll eventually try to pocket it.
Would it be possible for a single corporation, somewhere, anywhere in the world to not be corrupt as expletive?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even among legal scholars there is fierce debate on whether the law must take into account morality, and there is a school of thought that as long as a law follows the procedure (goes through first reading, second reading, third reading, sent to House of Lords and is approved, finally gets the Royal Assent), then it is a valid law, even if it is not moral.
*Steps onto Mayoral Soapbox*
That school of thought is wrong; as in factually incorrect.
The very rule of law itself rests on a moral foundation, a moral frame that so many modern people take for granted that we don't even think about it anymore: That each of us is an individual with hopes, lives, and agency; and so we are each deserving of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as the U.S. Declaration of Independence asserts.
This moral frame and foundation only gradually evolved, in the west at least, out of a very different moral frame: That people exist to serve their gods, their land, and their lord. Before the Enlightenment era, people lived without our modern moral frame of individuality, and so people had no general expecation of privacy, of autonomy, of freedom, of security, or of happiness.
Take Dicey's postulates for example:
1)No one is above the law.
2) Everyone is treated equally before the law regardless of rank or stature.
3)No one should be punished except for a distinct breach in the law of the land
If we all merely exist in service to lord as feudalism had people believe, or to nation as fascism/nationalism today would have us believe, why should the law hold authority over those who make it? Without the moral claim that we each have a right to happiness and autonomy, why should the law treat us all equally? Without the moral claim that protection of the innocent is more important than prosecution of the guilty, why should lawful punishment be reserved for clear ("beyond a reasonable doubt") breaches of the law?
Virtually everything about the law, barring purely arbitrary decisions like "we shall drive on the left side of the road rather than the right", is moral. From the very basis of the rule of law to the reasons for individual laws themselves, it's all moral.
I respect that you're a young LN kitty and apathetic about the law's morality; but I hope you realize that apathy is not neutral -- it plays into the hands of whoever is making and enforcing the law. If those person(s) are perfectly wise and benevolent, well no worries; but if they're evil or morally checkered as all people are, you are ignoring your own security, your own freedom, your own happiness, and the laws which allow you to live with others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Geez, busy morning!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Constable Dvyrwyn, the sword (and wings) of Law in the Othertown.
a lawful good character I like? The heck you say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Geez, busy morning!
adjust by 5 degrees and OPEN FIRE!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of the weather...
...Weather Underground put our highs in the 50s all week, which I know, I know, sounds ridiculously warm to you Midwesterners, but keep in mind that we have uninsulated, drafty houses that have a great deal of trouble keeping the interior temperature above 58° F.
So imagine my surprise and delight to see it hit 60° F over lunch so I could open up the house to air it out. *AND* the rain has washed out all the smoke.
It's a good weather day around here -- lots of clouds, good humidity for the area, the whole world smells fresh-washed, good temperature for the area, and rain coming tomorrow. Woot!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Philosophy aside, who are elected officials that I didn't vote for to tell me what to do? Am I to simply obey because the majority says so?
The majority 100 years ago said beating the shit out of your wife was perfectly legal, or denying basic ammenities because of race or sexual orientation.
The law is often wrong. If unquestioned it always leads to tyranny, given sufficient time. Always. If it hasn't, give it time.
*sigh*
The tablet is no longer with us. I tried to turn it after a long period of not using and it neither turns on, nor does it seem to charge.
The most likely culprit is the battery, obviously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait... It might be charging. The led on the top started to flash when I connected it to a different plug.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tonight we had a longsword competition.
I am very, very, very bad at longsword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW: I wrote the constable yesterday, before this bout of discussion of law started so it was in no way influence over her design.
|
Was it part of the paladin code that said no poison? I think she might need a way to deal non lethal(like go get a sap), because some people just need a lesson, they don't need to pay with their lives. Looking at her together with the Mayor of the Othertown, she's like the bad cop, while he's the good cop.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since we're being all political all of a sudden, is there anything more vile than Flexible Spending Accounts?
For those not in the U.S., in addition to all the other nonsense we have to deal with in being an insurance-based health care country, in general our medical payments are not tax-deductible... unless you pre-calculate how much you think you'll spend and set aside that money in a pre-ordained "Flexible Spending Account". The idea being, "Oh, medical care shouldn't be taxed, but we're going to make you set aside the money for it ahead of time."
So not execrable yet...
...except that if you don't use the money, the company that manages the account pockets it.Yes. You heard that right. "I think I will spend $2000 on medical care this year. I'll put $2000 in my FSA so I don't have to pay taxes on it. That will save me $500 in taxes! Woo hoo!"
"What's that? I only spent $1200 this year? And the FSA management company is pocketing the other $800? WTF?!?!?!?"Needless to say, I don't participate in FSAs.
GothBard uses one for her public transportation, but we're just finding out right now that our balance is close to $1000 and even though it rolls over, it doesn't roll over indefinitely and they'll eventually try to pocket it.
Would it be possible for a single corporation, somewhere, anywhere in the world to not be corrupt as expletive?
............What...........
*sigh*
The tablet is no longer with us. I tried to turn it after a long period of not using and it neither turns on, nor does it seem to charge.
The most likely culprit is the battery, obviously.
what tablet are you talking about?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
…my ass long spelling/grammatically error filled post…
First off sorry for the poor state of the post...
I'll try and do better.Secondly to TS.
I do kind of think you're conflating what 'Law' is with what it ought to be.
When I look at what 'Law' is then it's almost in every single case a codified set of rules, enforced through social or government institution, with the perpose of regulating the behaviours of its participants. There is no-where in that form that any claim of moral or ethical justification is absolutely necessary, though it can be used to lend credence to said rules.
Often you'll see that the very rights we claim entitlement to are in fact curtailed, limited or even waivered when faced with the application of 'Law'. With one of the most used examples being the right to/of private property which can in quite a number of ways curtailing other's access, usage, speech or a myriad of other rights we deem inherent rights in a modern world.
Philosophy aside, who are elected officials that I didn't vote for to tell me what to do? Am I to simply obey because the majority says so?
Nope, you're perfectly free to turn a deaf ear to them.
Just don't break any laws doing so, cause then they are perfectly free to levy an law appropriate punishment on you....
I don't do the sit in council chambers and dance the political game well...You sure?
I could see you as a vizier cat…though you might be a little too righteous and honest for your own good ^^
*yawns*
Governing is hard work and cats are by nature lazy.
*gives a Cheshire cat grin*
Can I then plop you down on my lap and stroke you menacingly, when I'm channeling Petyr Bellish during one of my multitude of machinations to grab ever increasing amounts of power?
*Gives Mort a head pat*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yes. We had to progress to the stage where I refused to read things for him (because he claimed packaging was just too *shiny* to read it) before he got his eyes checked.and the best way to approach fifty is firmly in denial about the aging process.
Dipper Pines (from the back seat of a car): Wait, is Grunkle Stan driving blindfolded?
Grunkle Stan: No, but with these cataracts I might as well be!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would it be possible for a single corporation, somewhere, anywhere in the world to not be corrupt as expletive?
Haven't you paid attention to any of my rants?
I don't even think there's a parallel universe in the multitude of parallel universes out there where even a single corporation is even mildly uncorrupt.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have the kids Christmas presents all set, mostly.
As usual, done without stress or inconveniencing others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yes. We had to progress to the stage where I refused to read things for him (because he claimed packaging was just too *shiny* to read it) before he got his eyes checked.and the best way to approach fifty is firmly in denial about the aging process.
Dipper Pines (from the back seat of a car): Wait, is Grunkle Stan driving blindfolded?
Grunkle Stan: No, but with these cataracts I might as well be!
Yea, my sight on my right eye (my aiming eye ^^') has taken a turn for the worse the last few years…yet I've been hesitant to actually get my ass to a ophthalmologist to get some numbers put on it (and if its just my age or whatnot).
Maybe it some kind of male mental or psychological blockage…or maybe we're just a prideful stubborn bunch ^^'
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yes. We had to progress to the stage where I refused to read things for him (because he claimed packaging was just too *shiny* to read it) before he got his eyes checked.and the best way to approach fifty is firmly in denial about the aging process.
Dipper Pines (from the back seat of a car): Wait, is Grunkle Stan driving blindfolded?
Grunkle Stan: No, but with these cataracts I might as well be!
Yea, my sight on my right eye (my aiming eye ^^') has taken a turn for the worse the last few years…yet I've been hesitant to actually get my ass to a ophthalmologist to get some numbers put on it (and if its just my age or whatnot).
Maybe it some kind of male mental or psychological blockage…or maybe we're just a prideful stubborn bunch ^^'
Prideful and stubborn is right!
(WW walks through the door)
Me: So... single vision or bifocals.
WW: Progressives.
Me: Progressives are bifocals, honey, just like mine.
[WW stands there silently.]
Me: You're fifty in a few months. What on earth did you expect?!?
WW: I expected to be one of those guys to make it into old age with all my hair, all my teeth, and no glasses!
Wait... It might be charging. The led on the top started to flash when I connected it to a different plug.
I had that happen with a waffle iron a year ago.
That was a bad panic.Charging light is good.
Wait... It might be charging. The led on the top started to flash when I connected it to a different plug.So ye plug's faulty.
More like it laid unusued for so long that it had to charge to be able to charge... :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prideful and stubborn is right!(WW walks through the door)
Me: So... single vision or bifocals.
WW: Progressives.
Me: Progressives are bifocals, honey, just like mine.
[WW stands there silently.]
Me: You're fifty in a few months. What on earth did you expect?!?
WW: I expected to be one of those guys to make it into old age with all my hair, all my teeth, and no glasses!
*Strokes ze beard*
I would probably have asked for a monocle ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Secondly to TS.
I do kind of think you're conflating what 'Law' is with what it ought to be.
When I look at what 'Law' is then it's almost in every single case a codified set of rules, enforced through social or government institution, with the perpose of regulating the behaviours of its participants. There is no-where in that form that any claim of moral or ethical justification is absolutely necessary, though it can be used to lend credence to said rules.
Often you'll see that the very rights we claim entitlement to are in fact curtailed, limited or even waivered when faced with the application of 'Law'. With one of the most used examples being the right to/of private property which can in quite a number of ways curtailing other's access, usage, speech or a myriad of other rights we deem inherent rights in a modern world.
I think I agree with you, I'm just using 'moral' in a slightly different way.
And yet loopholes and attacks on gun control law is always framed in moral claims: That the world is an inherently dangerous place, that the government is out to get us, that we have an absolute right to defense via firearms and stetson hats, and that our Constitution is and must always be interpreted to confirm this ideology.
In fact the reason that the no-consequences side has been so successful in the U.S. is because its advocates frame the debate in their [im]morals, while the gun-responsibility side is endlessly siting facts and statistics while largely leaving their own moral frames unspoken.
what tablet are you talking about?*sigh*
The tablet is no longer with us. I tried to turn it after a long period of not using and it neither turns on, nor does it seem to charge.
The most likely culprit is the battery, obviously.
Kobo Arc that I brought back from England...
It's working... But the updater is crashing preventing going through set-up.
Was it part of the paladin code that said no poison? I think she might need a way to deal non lethal(like go get a sap), because some people just need a lesson, they don't need to pay with their lives. Looking at her together with the Mayor of the Othertown, she's like the bad cop, while he's the good cop.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
The Mayor already had merciful cane, she can deal with –4 penalty to attack roll, or simply go full lethal and heal the downed opponent with her Lay On Hands afterwards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yes. We had to progress to the stage where I refused to read things for him (because he claimed packaging was just too *shiny* to read it) before he got his eyes checked.and the best way to approach fifty is firmly in denial about the aging process.
Dipper Pines (from the back seat of a car): Wait, is Grunkle Stan driving blindfolded?
Grunkle Stan: No, but with these cataracts I might as well be!
Yea, my sight on my right eye (my aiming eye ^^') has taken a turn for the worse the last few years…yet I've been hesitant to actually get my ass to a ophthalmologist to get some numbers put on it (and if its just my age or whatnot).
Maybe it some kind of male mental or psychological blockage…or maybe we're just a prideful stubborn bunch ^^'
Prideful and stubborn is right!
(WW walks through the door)
Me: So... single vision or bifocals.
WW: Progressives.
Me: Progressives are bifocals, honey, just like mine.
[WW stands there silently.]
Me: You're fifty in a few months. What on earth did you expect?!?
WW: I expected to be one of those guys to make it into old age with all my hair, all my teeth, and no glasses!
I shave my head to increase my black manliness, have worn glasses almost all my life and lost a tooth in noble battle against an unseen bone. WW really is wingey.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the update finished, set-up completed. The tablet is back in use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the update finished, set-up completed. The tablet is back in use.
WOOOOOOOOOO