Good point, but you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

I think the problem in this case is an age old one. If a police officer asks a citizen innocent of any crime "do you mind if I search your xyz?" and the citizen rightfully says "yes I mind, and no you may not search my xyz" then the police officer says "what have you got to hide?" and immediately and incorrectly forms a reasonable suspicion that they are about to commit, committing, or going to commit a crime.

This is tempered by the fact that the police officer deals with people all day long who are in fact guilty and will lie about their crime. This does not give the police officer a right to treat people like they are guilty before the fact.

It's good that this has happened because people are talking about it and hopefully this will change things (through law) to be fairer for everyone.

>> ^NaMeCaF:

All well and good in theory, but reality is most people will have to put up with doing a job they dont necessarily love in order to live. Otherwise we'd have no janitors, or garbage men, etc.
Not everyone can do their "dream" job but they still have to pay the mortgage, support the family and pay those internet, phone, water, gas, electricity, etc bills.


Very true, but it doesn't mean that no-one can do their dream job. When I hear things like this I think what it's really saying is don't be like everyone else, leave that to them. Yes, most people won't be able to, but it's up to you to try to be not like most people. I wish I was better at it. I'm part way there with a job I fundamentally like. I could earn more doing other things but I've tried to draw my own line in the sand (I'm not quite doing my dream job, my line is certainly a compromise - I still need the money). I think I'm in a lucky position to be able to though (but I think this is true of anyone in the first world).

I think a lot of people would be a lot happier if they sacrificed a bit of money in trade for more happiness at work.

>> ^ReverendTed:

I think your "line in the sand" is a perfectly rational approach. I disagree personally, but I can appreciate that you're taking a reasoned approach and I would be willing to accept it as a basis for legislation on the matter.
It gets problematic when we attempt to define "a definitively human quality". On one extreme, a human fetus is and will be a human fetus. On the other extreme, even newborns only look human, and exhibit few, if any, behaviors that distinguish them from primates. (Primate rights, or animal rights in general being another hot potato, tying in to the "only care about killing humans" sentiment.)

What, to you, would constitute a "definitively human quality"? Limbs? Beginning of neural development?
(This directly ties into what I think is that "most important question", so if you'd like to reply in the original thread, that's great.)


I look at this from two different perspectives:

What do I think is right?
This is a sliding scale, not black and white. I've got zero problem with the morning after pill and probably no issue even with a first trimester abortion. At the other end of the spectrum, I think a third trimester abortion is pushing it a little.

These have to be judged on a case by case basis, though. [Warning: I'm about to be absurd for the sake of illustration.] If a woman is on her 9th abortion, all due to accidental pregnancy, I'm not going to think particularly highly of her (or the father for that matter). Though still, my problem with her wouldn't be that nine children have been "murdered", it would be that she's an irresponsible, immature fuckup (and again, him too). But I also wouldn't want such people raising children, so it's probably better that way.

If you're having a third trimester abortion for an accidental pregnancy, I might wonder why you waited so long. If you're having it because you may not survive the birth, by all means, do so.

There are all sorts of other factors that could potentially change my opinion in either case. Most importantly, while I may have an opinion on these cases or any others, I realize I have no say in any of these cases unless I'm the father (and even then, barely). This brings me to the second perspective.

What makes for a good law?
I don't like grey in laws, they should be as black and white as possible, and abortion is simply not condusive to that sort of law. This is why I think the "line in the sand" needs to be drawn at birth and the choice needs to be made by the would-be mother, hopefully with input from the would-be father, if he's in the picture.

Generally speaking, I think it's perfectly acceptable for things which may be considered wrong to also be legal. Women who have abortions already face tremendous ostracization in society; there's nothing to be gained by locking them up as well.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Why is a heartbeat so important? Deer have heartbeats and yet, every fall, the forests are filled with armed Republicans.
Since we clearly only care about killing humans, if a line is to be drawn in the sand, then I say it needs to be on the basis of the development of a definitively human quality in the fetus.
I must have missed your comment earlier and wanted to reply, but the latest three replies in that thread were already mine, and the last one is, to me, the most important, so I figured I'd reply here.



I put the heartbeat comment in parentheses because it wasn't the point in itself, but illustrative of how quickly the fetus develops. After seeing my own developing children on an ultrasound, I can understand the reasoning behind the "mandatory pre-operative ultrasound" legislation a few states have instituted. I was very surprised by how quickly things go from "dark blob" to "vaguely humanoid" to "little person" and I suspect a non-trivial proportion of people seeking abortion may be as uninformed about it as I was. I was not at all expecting to hear their heartbeats when we did, which is why the heartbeat illustration carries weight with me.

I think your "line in the sand" is a perfectly rational approach. I disagree personally, but I can appreciate that you're taking a reasoned approach and I would be willing to accept it as a basis for legislation on the matter.
It gets problematic when we attempt to define "a definitively human quality". On one extreme, a human fetus is and will be a human fetus. On the other extreme, even newborns only look human, and exhibit few, if any, behaviors that distinguish them from primates. (Primate rights, or animal rights in general being another hot potato, tying in to the "only care about killing humans" sentiment.)

What, to you, would constitute a "definitively human quality"? Limbs? Beginning of neural development?
(This directly ties into what I think is that "most important question", so if you'd like to reply in the original thread, that's great.)

>> ^deathcow:

Where exactly is the line in the sand where killing becomes politically incorrect? Would a yard mounted 5 watt laser that cooked squirrels instantly draw ire?


To hell with being politically correct; I'm setting mine to "cat" and pulling up a lawn chair.

>> ^deathcow:

Where exactly is the line in the sand where killing becomes politically incorrect? Would a yard mounted 5 watt laser that cooked squirrels instantly draw ire?
Ire and applause in equal measure, I'm sure, depending on the audience's opinion of adorable, cuddly, disease-ridden vermin.

Where exactly is the line in the sand where killing becomes politically incorrect? Would a yard mounted 5 watt laser that cooked squirrels instantly draw ire?

>> ^siftbot:

Adding video to channels (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nature.videosift.com" style="color:#00C040">Nature) - requested by ant.


pretty apparent he is a pet if you can take a video of him that close.

** I was wrong, "However, videos of wild animals (that includes wild animals in zoos) should not be put in this channel. They go in the *Nature channel."

as stupid as that line in the sand is thats the way it is !

Get off you high horse.

If one holds the opinion that begin gay is ok then you fine with it.
But If some one has the opinion that being gay is wrong than you think the worst of them. It appears that you have drawn a line in the sand and believe that bible believing people are the worst. Are you that intolerant of bible believing people.

I said nothing about mistreating or disrespecting gays and yet you drew you own false conclusions about me.




>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^bobknight33:
There is a difference between fear, hate and what one believes what is wrong. If one believes that being gay is wrong then it is wrong.

The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. So who's right -- what percentage of the population is homosexual?

I believe 2+2=5, Belief doesn't make you correct. You should be listening to evidence, not belief.
@PostalBlowfish is absolutely right, you can believe homosexuality is wrong all you want. There are still lots of people who believe blacks are of inferior genetic stock, women shouldn't vote and that the earth is really flat and that we didn't go to the moon either.
Public policy, however, has a higher standard of evidence than what makes @bobknight33 and the other bible thumpers uncomfortable. Doesn't matter if there were only two homosexuals in the entire world or 200 billion, you still treat people with basic dignity and respect and they have a right to their pursuit of happiness as you do. Civil rights is not a popularity contest.
If homosexuality is so horrible and detrimental to society as you would have us believe, you shouldn't have any problem proving it without using the bible. I eagerly await your mountains of evidence.
Run away bob, run away to your next sift-trolling

You think they'd have learned by MANY of the areas of the world that have found extremely better ways to handle waste than just dumping it in one massive site (even here in the U.S.; I remember having massive dumps in the 80's in Utah, but they're long gone now). Maybe it's temporary, but the fact that all the waste isn't separated, with hazardous and toxic chemicals not being separated is unreal in a semi-well to do country.

They'll have to restore the whole area to rid it of the toxic sludge that'll be made, let alone what WILL go into the water once it hits the water line in that sand. Ick.

all anyone has done here is draw their own ideological line in the sand, and throw shit at any dissent. for shame, sifters.

If you want to bitch about Ron Paul's definition of life (which he justifies in parallel to our current legal system) at least bother to elaborate as to why you happen to know what counts as a human.

>> ^Porksandwich:

Why did it take a year to bring forward the lawsuit if it was such a religious reason?


Typically, employment-related lawsuits can't go through until mediation and line-in-the-sand deadlines are passed.

Yea I was swatted at, spanked with a wooden spoon, fed soap, etc. I'm not against negative reinforcement but in the case here, the girl is clearly afraid of her parents and they clearly go over the top in continuing to torment her. The kid was screaming for them to stop and there was plenty of time for the parents to reflect on the situation and ask themselves "do I think she's learned her lesson?" The parents were also "emoting" their own anger upon the child. That's not right. You should never inflict damage upon somebody based on your anger. I can't do that in the streets, why should I be able to do it with my child?

You can't just call the "objective definition" card to win an argument when circumstance has to determine the severity of the actions. If she got drunk, stole her mother's vehicle and ran over a group of preschoolers, then raped their remains, I'd say "yea, that is an adequate reaction". But this is over a computer. He was clearly just angry that she disobeyed him, which is purely egotistical. And this man is locking your peers up. I wonder how often he gets emotional and angry when sentencing somebody...I wonder how objective he is in that situation.

I'd like to know...where do you draw the line...also, what's your real name so I can make sure my kids will never be around you.>> ^longde:

Until you guys can give me an objective definition or objective standard of abuse, you're just emoting over your own personal line in the sand on the matter.
It's great to feel a sense of self-righteousness, until you're a parent, and you happen to cross another person's arbitrary line in the sand.
I was punished with a belt as a child, and it NEVER left bruises. It did leave welts that lasted a day. And you're damn right I was afraid of disobeying my parents and afraid of punishment. Thank heavens you guys weren't around to toss me into a foster home.

>> ^longde:

Until you guys can give me an objective definition or objective standard of abuse, you're just emoting over your own personal line in the sand on the matter.
It's great to feel a sense of self-righteousness, until you're a parent, and you happen to cross another person's arbitrary line in the sand.
I was punished with a belt as a child, and it NEVER left bruises. It did leave welts that lasted a day. And you're damn right I was afraid of disobeying my parents and afraid of punishment. Thank heavens you guys weren't around to toss me into a foster home.


My metric: causing lasting emotional damage.
It is evident by the mere fact that this video has been posted by the abusee that Judge Willam Adams caused her emotional damage that sticks with her to this day.

Until you guys can give me an objective definition or objective standard of abuse, you're just emoting over your own personal line in the sand on the matter.

It's great to feel a sense of self-righteousness, until you're a parent, and you happen to cross another person's arbitrary line in the sand.

I was punished with a belt as a child, and it NEVER left bruises. It did leave welts that lasted a day. And you're damn right I was afraid of disobeying my parents and afraid of punishment. Thank heavens you guys weren't around to toss me into a foster home.