A) Tom Paine was wicked cool.
B) "Tom Paine" is a wicked cool name. I thought about putting him on the list, but decided against it--I don't remember why now.
C) It was Tom Paine who was opposed to executing Louis Capet. One of the reasons the Jacobins through him in jail.
Hee hee! You cheese-eating...
How have you been? I haven't seen you in forever. Well, I saw you once last week.
Fine, thanks. I was enjoying some of my six weeks vacation by the sea, with my little hobbits.
I've been reading tons about your 1789, btw. Great stuff, I love it. Way cooler than 1776. But, all these books end with the downfall of Robespierre. :(
I am reading Lefebvre's now and that goes up to 1799 at least, but what do socialist Frenchmen recommend as the best book on Napoleon?
Oh, tough question : there is a lot of books on that particular topic. For a universitarian work, try Jean Tulard's biography ("Napoleon, le mythe du sauveur"). For a more enjoyable read, still historical but romanced, try Max Gallo's (four tomes). Both don't skip the little part where the englishmen try to start a war by proxy to promptly squash the revolution, and end up with a major war. Oops.
To get this a bit more back on track:
High Court Rules That Man Must Prolong His Suffering Instead of Dying with Dignity
Without knowing the legal system overseas, this doesn’t appear to be the court’s fault. They’re just doing their jobs. But it’s up to English lawmakers to correct this injustice. It may be a politically incorrect topic, but it’s an important one. For all the thought given to the politics regarding birth and conception, we don’t pay much attention to end-of-life issues.
Hee hee! You cheese-eating...
How have you been? I haven't seen you in forever. Well, I saw you once last week.
Fine, thanks. I was enjoying some of my six weeks vacation by the sea, with my little hobbits.
Oh, tough question : there is a lot of books on that particular topic. For a universitarian work, try Jean Tulard's biography ("Napoleon, le mythe du sauveur"). For a more enjoyable read, still historical but romanced, try Max Gallo's (four tomes). Both don't skip the little part where the englishmen try to start a war by proxy to promptly squash the revolution, and end up with a major war. Oops.I've been reading tons about your 1789, btw. Great stuff, I love it. Way cooler than 1776. But, all these books end with the downfall of Robespierre. :(
I am reading Lefebvre's now and that goes up to 1799 at least, but what do socialist Frenchmen recommend as the best book on Napoleon?
Duly noted. Thanks!
To get this a bit more back on track:
High Court Rules That Man Must Prolong His Suffering Instead of Dying with Dignity
Without knowing the legal system overseas, this doesn’t appear to be the court’s fault. They’re just doing their jobs. But it’s up to English lawmakers to correct this injustice. It may be a politically incorrect topic, but it’s an important one. For all the thought given to the politics regarding birth and conception, we don’t pay much attention to end-of-life issues.
I was going to post this as well, but you beat me to it. ;) For me this goes to the central moral question self ownership versus humans being state property in varying degrees.
Even if one rejects my view and accepts the notion that the state should violate our rights "for our own good" what public policy end does it serve to use state force to limit people's end of life choices?
|
To get this a bit more back on track:
High Court Rules That Man Must Prolong His Suffering Instead of Dying with Dignity
Without knowing the legal system overseas, this doesn’t appear to be the court’s fault. They’re just doing their jobs. But it’s up to English lawmakers to correct this injustice. It may be a politically incorrect topic, but it’s an important one. For all the thought given to the politics regarding birth and conception, we don’t pay much attention to end-of-life issues.I was going to post this as well, but you beat me to it. ;) For me this goes to the central moral question self ownership versus humans being state property in varying degrees.
Even if one rejects my view and accepts the notion that the state should violate our rights "for our own good" what public policy end does it serve to use state force to limit people's end of life choices?
The courts made the right decision, even if it's not one I like. The law is clear on this, and unfrotuinately, it's clear that what he wants is not legal. As for why this is the case? Blame "the sanctity of life". Apparently living as a shell is prefereable to dying with dignity. Well, prefeable to gettign someone to kuill you with dignity. And that's part of the problem. There is a lot of, possibly false, concern for the disabled and elderly who may be pressured to 'stop being a burden' or otherwise persuaded to take advantage of this faciltiy if it existed. Persoanlly, I think that's scaremongering b@#@&~~s, but that's the argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fine, thanks. I was enjoying some of my six weeks vacation by the sea, with my little hobbits.
Vive le Galt!
To get this a bit more back on track:
High Court Rules That Man Must Prolong His Suffering Instead of Dying with Dignity
Yeah, this totally isn't the court's fault. Look at that guy's face. Good one, Your Honor.
what do socialist Frenchmen recommend as the best book on Napoleon?
Le Comte de Monte Cristo. (Ducks.)
Fine, thanks. I was enjoying some of my six weeks vacation by the sea
I get two... and the sea closest to me has a large collection of chemical plants and refineries directly upstream, within view.
I get 3...but those days also count as sick time.
At my old job I got 2 weeks vacation, but also 12 sick days, 4 personal days, and 11 holidays. And I got paid well to watch movies.
I miss my old job :(
Pussy Riot!!!
I see a scapegoat and a cup of hemlock in the future for someone...
Warsaw Uprising 1944. In memory of brave polish people.
EDIT: Random drunk music post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pussy Riot!!!I see a scapegoat and a cup of hemlock in the future for someone...
I drank what!?!?
|
Warsaw Uprising 1944. In memory of brave polish people.
EDIT: Random drunk music post.
Cool song. Good to see something positive about us poles for a change.
Cool song. Good to see something positive about us poles for a change.Warsaw Uprising 1944. In memory of brave polish people.
EDIT: Random drunk music post.
Please don't get this thread closed. ;)
EDIT: Alamo level sacrifice.
*Salute!*
Aside from y occasional bad joke, I rarely see anything negative about poles. Honest farm folk, mostly.
Aside from y occasional bad joke, I rarely see anything negative about poles. Honest farm folk, mostly.
You should come to Europe then, they aren't always the most popular people in all areas of society here.
Live free or else! ;)
Aside from y occasional bad joke, I rarely see anything negative about poles. Honest farm folk, mostly.Racist jokes, bad stereotypes, accusations of antisemitism. I have heard it all.
A fare number of hunters and woodsmen too, i think that is where i get it from.
I've heard of poles who have issues with jews due to post wwii chicanery, but hardened antisemitism? No. Ah well, I live in Brooklyn, so I guess I'm just not going to see that.
A li'l culture for y'all.
Yes I read the article. Did you miss every example where the FDA makes us less safe?I don't think it suits your narrative to say "The FDA (and USDA, which is a great deal of the legal paper) makes us less safe because its regulations aren't comprehensive enough or enforced effectively," but okay, sure.
I would think it's obvious that I don't agree with everything on Myopia. I would also suspect that we might agree that waging a war on raw milk with armed raids is stupid and abusive of government power, but I might be wrong.A "war on raw milk"? For one, most of that article isn't about raw milk. For another, it averages one example a year over a span of 27 years, and most of those cases are sourced to hilariously unreliable sources like myopia.org or this same "naturalnews" site.
So this "war on raw milk" is an abuse of government power, sure, just like the "war on unicorns" is.
If you don't care for the thread then why post on it? Feel free to use the hide function.I don't care for misinformation. Just pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away.Do you really think an armed raid is an appropriate reaction to the possession of raw milk?
I know you're a big fan of government control, but that seems a bit silly even for you.
How far should the government go to control what adults put in their own bodies in your opinion?
Is raw milk a potential disease risk to consumers? Yes.
Are the claims that raw milk is better for you based on fact? No The claims regarding Raw Milk are little more than the rantings of snake oil sales men at this point.
Isit there for reasonable to licence its production? Society used licencing to ensure a minimium level of safety and quality in a whole range of industries. Regulation, where enforced, has demonstrably increased standards on grounds of welfare, food hygiene and safety since the introduction of regulation of food production. As such I do consider it reasonable.
Is it legal for the government to inspect premises that produce milk? Yes, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act provides those powers.
Is it criminal to produce milk for sale without a licence? Yes (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act again)
I think it is reasonable for police to act to enforce a nations laws, especially when those laws act to prevent causes of injury and illness to the population.
I do not consider it reasonable, in a nation where gun ownership is common, to ask police officers to undertake their duty, without the ability to protect themselves while entering premises operated by individuals running a criminal enterprise.
so you think tobacco should just be outlawed and alcohol too, I assume?
Or Soda? Or la-z-boy recliners?
No, not really. I mean prohibition generates criminal markets, is prohibitively expensive and fails in its aim.
I think that production should be regulated to reduce risk, that sales should be taxed at a level where the taxation acts as deterant, and that the processeds of said taxes should be used to fund health care for those who have suffered as a result of said products. You know, things that actually work to reduce the danger these products represent.
Man, where were these teachers when I was in high school?
Oh yeah, that's right, I remember now.
Man, where were these teachers when I was in high school?
BT, your thoughts?
I actually disagree with this very strongly. If these men were over the age of consent, she should have been fired, not prosecuted. I think her husband should have divorced her if she had a problem with it.
For the record, I linked this articles for the salaciousness, not necessarily as examples of Gov't Folly.
But, come to think of it, yeah, if they're all over 18, then why's there a jail sentence? There must be special laws about not having sex with your students, which were probably passed to go after university professors, not high school teachers, but the latter'll do just as well.
I actually disagree with this very strongly. If these men were over the age of consent, she should have been fired, not prosecuted.This law exists for the same reason that statutory rape laws exist. This is the epitome of abusing a position of power sexually.
You have to consider the fact that none of the men involved int his pressed charges. I don't consider this a statutory issue in the slightest- everyone involved was above the age of consent and could(and did) legally do so.
You have to consider the fact that none of the men involved int his pressed charges. I don't consider this a statutory issue in the slightest- everyone involved was above the age of consent and could(and did) legally do so.
This law exists for the same reason that statutory rape laws exist. This is the epitome of abusing a position of power sexually.
(Emphasis mine)
She wasn't prosecuted for statutory rape. She was prosecuted for having an inappropriate relationship with a student.
You have to consider the fact that none of the men involved int his pressed charges. I don't consider this a statutory issue in the slightest- everyone involved was above the age of consent and could(and did) legally do so.
This law exists for the same reason that statutory rape laws exist. This is the epitome of abusing a position of power sexually.(Emphasis mine)
She wasn't prosecuted for statutory rape. She was prosecuted for having an inappropriate relationship with a student.
I read and re-read the article and discovered my gripe is with texas law. Still have a problem with it. Maybe it's because of my own high school experience and the time of year I was born(what are 18 - 19 year olds still doing in high school?!?!), but seriously, consenting adults.
Maybe it's because of my own high school experience
I'm pretty sure that wanting to bang the hot English teacher is a pretty universal experience for heterosexual (probably homosexual as well) males. Come to think of it, probably the females, too.
I read and re-read the article and discovered my gripe is with texas law. Still have a problem with it. Maybe it's because of my own high school experience and the time of year I was born(what are 18 - 19 year olds still doing in high school?!?!), but seriously, consenting adults.You have to consider the fact that none of the men involved int his pressed charges. I don't consider this a statutory issue in the slightest- everyone involved was above the age of consent and could(and did) legally do so.
This law exists for the same reason that statutory rape laws exist. This is the epitome of abusing a position of power sexually.(Emphasis mine)
She wasn't prosecuted for statutory rape. She was prosecuted for having an inappropriate relationship with a student.
Would you consider it any different in a state where the age of consent is 16?
Should it be strictly up to the school fire them? Or would the school be legally required to fire teacher who had sex with students who were of age?
Oh hells yeah she should be fired and probably face some serious legal penalties, including jail time. But the way this is written is just stupid- you could do 20 years for having sex with a consenting adult, even if that consenting adult lies about their status as a student. That didn't happen here, mind, but it's what bothers me.
Maybe it's because of my own high school experienceI'm pretty sure that wanting to bang the hot English teacher is a pretty universal experience for heterosexual (probably homosexual as well) males. Come to think of it, probably the females, too.
Oh make NO mistake, I was certainly hot for a teacher that is still indeed working at my school and I still am!!!!! In fact, I ran into a guy at work that went to the same high school who also knows her and is just as smitten. She's a wonderful woman.
The experience I was referring to was age- I graduated at 17, and a few people were even younger than me. I was born late in the year and started school early, puberty was weird because everyone was either younger or sooooooooo much farther along than I was emotionally and physically.
The experience I was referring to was age- I graduated at 17, and a few people were even younger than me. I was born late in the year and started school early, puberty was weird because everyone was either younger or sooooooooo much farther along than I was emotionally and physically.
Well, I'm guessing you were never held back a year. Or two.
School sucks!
The experience I was referring to was age- I graduated at 17, and a few people were even younger than me. I was born late in the year and started school early, puberty was weird because everyone was either younger or sooooooooo much farther along than I was emotionally and physically.Well, I'm guessing you were never held back a year. Or two.
School sucks!
IIRC there was some discussion about it when I was in 4th grade..I had trouble with math but was so bright elsewhere it never happened. I don't think any of my friends were ever held back a grade.
|
She wasn't prosecuted for statutory rape. She was prosecuted for having an inappropriate relationship with a student.And I didn't say she was prosecuted for statutory rape. She was prosecuted for a law that criminalizes abuse of an imbalance of power sexually. It's the same principle behind statutory rape and sexual harassment laws. Teachers should not be having sex with students for the same reason that adults should not have sex with minors and employers should not proposition employees: there is an inherent imbalance of power.
There is actually no law against an employer having sex with an employee. It only becomes sexual harassment when the advances are consistent and unwanted or when the employer proposes some sort of tit-for-tat arrangement.
If the teacher said, "That D I gave you on your essay could become an A if you partook in some 'extracurricular activity'," then I would agree that she should be charged with leveraging her position of authority to have sex with her students. Nothing here suggests that anything like that happened. I'm with FHDM: these are consenting adults. It is a professional lapse for which she should lose her job, but I can't see how we can justify jail time.
She wasn't prosecuted for statutory rape. She was prosecuted for having an inappropriate relationship with a student.And I didn't say she was prosecuted for statutory rape. She was prosecuted for a law that criminalizes abuse of an imbalance of power sexually. It's the same principle behind statutory rape and sexual harassment laws. Teachers should not be having sex with students for the same reason that adults should not have sex with minors and employers should not proposition employees: there is an inherent imbalance of power.
There is actually no law against an employer having sex with an employee. It only becomes sexual harassment when the advances are consistent and unwanted or when the employer proposes some sort of tit-for-tat arrangement.
If the teacher said, "That D I gave you on your essay could become an A if you partook in some 'extracurricular activity'," then I would agree that she should be charged with leveraging her position of authority to have sex with her students. Nothing here suggests that anything like that happened. I'm with FHDM: these are consenting adults. It is a professional lapse for which she should lose her job, but I can't see how we can justify jail time.
Not just her job, but her license. Her career as a teacher should DEFINITELY be finished. But she is NOT a sex offender- these were consenting adults.
|
|
Interestingly, I did have a teacher in HS who slept with one of her students. It was my Biology teacher, and the student was either 17 or 18 (17 being age of consent in NY). He had passed her class earlier, so she was not actively teaching him, but she was also involved with coordinating the theater productions and he participated in those.
She lost her job, but did not go to jail. I think that is as it should be.
There is actually no law against an employer having sex with an employee. It only becomes sexual harassment when the advances are consistent and unwanted or when the employer proposes some sort of tit-for-tat arrangement.And, again, I didn't say there was. Employers don't wield the same power over employees that teachers do, who in turn wield less power than adults over children. Correspondingly, sexual harassment is more flexible and has less stringent penalties than this Texas law, which in turn has lesser penalties compared to statutory rape. They are all similar, though: each is an abuse of power turned to sexual advantage. A position of power clouds the idea that this is consensual; consent and coercion are not an on/off switch.
I'm sorry to say I disagree. I see where you are coming from, however, but I don't think this law is being used properly. I wonder if things would have been different if these guys took the stand.