RZ1029
-
Posts
375 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by RZ1029
-
-
Of course people at a certain age should be charged fully with the crime. What is that age?
Depends on the crime, depends on the child, and depends on the situation. 1) Does the child understand what they did? If yes, do they know what they did was wrong? If yes, charge as a full adult. If they don't know it is wrong and are 8+, they are mentally ill in some way, and need to see a psychiatrist. If they don't understand what they did, it's clear they can't function in an adult society, jail included, and need special treatment and attention, but they should all still serve time.
I'm wondering what the parents' reaction to their kid brutally stabbing someone is.
Good point. some parents might just approve, which brings up another question. Should parents be accountable for their children's crimes, if they are violent crimes?
In a way, yes. To the point where they stand trial with the child? No. However, I would not object if they were to be brought up on child neglect charges (or something similar, I'm no lawyer) for failure to teach a child properly. The reason I disagree with charging them fully is because the child will still be exposed to a degree of right/wrong understanding through school, and should have some sense of morality, even at the most base level.
-
Can make 100% certain they won't be a problem in the future if you just put a bullet in their head. Sometimes I wonder if that wouldn't be a better plan.
Ehehehe. Welcome to the dark side.
A tad draconian even for me, so I will assume that your tongue is firmly in your cheek?
I don't know, I kind of like the eye-for-an-eye concept. Can we stab both of them and cut Xs in their cheek?
Though in my view any person over the age of ten that commits a capital crime should not be treated as just a naughty child but have to bear the consequences of that action by being removed from civil society for an extended duration and in some sociopathic cases permanently.
From the article:
scolded her for the "very cowardly thing you did" There's your problem. The judge 'scolded' her. Please, a kid was nearly killed. You don't scold someone for that, you throw the book at them like you would any adult. Show them the repercussions of their actions, and make an example out of them.
-
Unlike the exit button on that huge picture. :(
-
I believe the correct way of phrasing your statement would be: Is there a website that is exclusively and completely devoted to the hosting of debates, in which all can participate? And to answer your question: I have no idea. Google it.
Edited for punctuational error.
-
A parent should never have to bury a child.
Nothing more I could add to this.
-
Umm... I'm not going to lie, I knew a lot of that off the top of my head, it was mostly double-checking statistics. Especially on the distance from US-> North Korea, and the speed of the Tomahawk and Minuteman missiles.
Besides, there's an SBI office about 4 minutes away, if they had noticed, they'd already be here.
-
Wh---What?! You don't need ICBMs to launch a nuke half way around the world? Your logic, it is flawed. If they delivered it in a plane, it would be picked up on a radar, intercepted, and then likely shot down after it refused to turn back. In order to launch a nuke that we would not be able to intercept and destroy in some way shape or form, they would need long-range missile capabilities. Even if launched from a submarine using a missile system similar to the Tomahawk missiles currently in use by the US military (which only has one nuclear variant- using the W80 nuclear warhead which is a variable yield nuke that puts out between 5kt and 150kt yield. That's 1/3-10x yield compared to the 'Little Boy' we dropped on Hiroshima. It would cover approximately 20 square miles at most, in the initial impact. Obviously the radiation and the shockwave will have much more wide-spread effects) the range on the missiles is fairly impressive, but still lacking.
2,500 km, about 1600 miles, more or less. It is approximately 6000 miles between California and North Korea. They would have to send a submarine three-quarters of the way across the Pacific in order to launch a missile, assuming they have the capabilities of some of the most advanced (portable) nuclear weapon systems the US does. Which I wouldn't put past them, but it is still unlikely.
By the way, if we launch a nuclear barrage at North Korea, I assure you it will be a nice, level nuclear hell-hole by the time they realize what hit them.
PS: Tomahawk missiles only fly at about 550mph max. That's a 3 hour flight time. The US LGM-30 Minuteman missiles have a estimated speed of 15,000pmh. North Korea would be wasted while their missiles were still en-route. I feel like I forgot some other bit of useful information here.
Also... nuking China is a bad idea.
EDIT: Remembered what I forgot to remember. The US does have a missile defense system, but it's (tested) success rate is far from 100% (something like 60%, if I remember right), so don't count on that to save us. Also... if my search history were to be currently investigated by the FBI, I might have some explaining to do, with searches along the lines of 'ICBM', 'distance from North Korea to California', etc.
-
As a great man once said, "Democracy is non-negotible."
We helped them because they are fighting for their freedom, not for some crusade or other goal, but so that they can be free. And any country that is fighting for there freedom against an unjust government deserves our support.
This. Minus the quote. Democracy was highly negotiable for several Presidents in our history.
-
It is a sick, sad affair, and my thoughts are with the people of Norway, and the friends and family of those that were killed.
-
Hmmm... what game would I create...
The idea actually started in High-school, back when Runescape was still popular. We (being my friends and I) all thought it would be cool if the tech slowly developed in the game, from here have a bronze spear to here, have a laser pistol. Evolutions of societies, especially on large scales, have always been interesting to me, and assuming money, time, man power, et cetera was not an issue, I could hire my legion of a million codes/artists to build my dream.
Of course, you can all get free copies at your local Best Buy, on the 10-disc set, and that's not counting the extra 3 discs of free DLC.
To elaborate, it would be a MMORPG RTS. There would be massive cities which players could form guilds/clans/whatever to fight over, either diplomatically, through bribery, or through violence. Players could choose to either be a citizen of the city at creation, or live in the countryside in a smaller NPC-run village. The villages would be subject to being made vassals by the player-run cities. The player-run cities would gain NPC conscripts for basic defense, in addition to supplies for trade/building up the city/its defenses.
Character death would be permanent, but upon re-creation, you would come back as your previous chars descendant. You would get most of the possessions/money back, but you would have to build your character back up, so your previous life isn't a total waste, but death is still a penalty.
I could probably refine/elaborate on it, but it's 2 AM here, and I'm going to bed.
-
I'm with Indoril, I spent three days there two years ago, and it was like they stole something out of a fantasy book then built New Zealand to fit.
Edit: Pics later, maybe. I'll have to sift through my collection of SD cards.
-
Politics has indeed descended to Red vs. Blue today. Not true. Red vs. Blue is twice as entertaining as CSPAN will ever be, except for the ONE day they showed Bush getting a shoe thrown at his head. When I see two candidates, I ignore what party they're from and look at what they say they believe and do. Then I make my decisions on who to vote for.
Same. I could care less if he is a Democratic uber-Liberal of death or whatever, if I agree with what (s)he is saying (and, hopefully, doing) they have my vote.
As for if it would give him a Congress that supported him, I'd be for it. I'm sick of seeing, for the last three presidents, a Congress who sits there and blocks everything the president tries to do just because he's the other color.
Eh... nevermind. I'm not going to touch this.
My single vote? No. A lot of non-voters? Yes. It sends a signal that a growing percentage of the population find the current political elite (regardless of their affiliation) repulsive. It also indicates that there is an opening for a new political force to enter and convince the voters that they are a viable alternative.
So you would rather let the supposed 'others' who don't 'understand' like you do, chose how your country is run? I assure you, politicians don't care if you don't vote, you're just one less person they have to worry about winning over to get in. So you're just doing them a favor.
As to "Voting for the lesser evil will delay the country from being completely destroyed" that's pure rhetoric. Voting alone has not prevented any country from being destroyed.
Who says it's always the lesser evil? I can usually find a candidate or two in most any race that I can support in majority, if not entirety. The obvious fact is, you will likely never find a politician who agrees with everything single view you have, much the way it would be hard for anyone to find one other person who's in complete agreement. And you're right, voting alone will not prevent a country from being destroyed, but at least someone's trying to do some good, even in the smallest way.
-
The History Channel could be more aptly called the Military Channel and I leave it on as background noise all the time. Always been a sucker for documentaries but find the Science Channel at least has new ones. :whistling:
There's a Military Channel too, on the extended cable package around here. Not sure I get a science channel.
-
TLC is just horrible too...The Learning Channel? More like The Lame Channel :P
Wait, what? That's what it stands for?! o_O Never would have guessed that.
But yeah, about the only channels I watch any more are USA, FX, and Nat'l Geographic sometimes. History channel for background noise, and then I'll occasionally actually watch it if it's an interesting Pawn Stars episode or if they do the Dogfights show, that holds my interest usually. USA has NCIS, one of the few shows I actually care to keep up with due to the fairly easy to follow story and 'good guy always wins' which is a nice break from real life. FX has some good movies on pretty regularly, but otherwise is generally garbage.
-
History Channel and Discovery Channel both are going this way, unfortunately. While some of the shows are somewhat interesting, they have little to nothing to do with history.
Also... who's that in your avatar? Been meaning to ask.
-
This is the other one that had to be done...
THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
-
Honestly, I think that says more about medical practitioners than the drugs.
Depression is something that obviously exists, I don't think there's anyone who would argue that. The use of medication to treat it has been proven to work for most, but not all, who suffer from it. There are some that, for lack of a better term, do not 'believe' in medication, and refuse to use it. And then there are those who rush to the doctor, not for a diagnosis, but for the magic pill they can take to feel better.
From antibiotics to painkillers, doctors are almost afraid not to prescribe something, for fear of being liable. It almost never fails when I go in for a physical, I'll end up with either some new allergy medication or whatever, even though I've not had issues with my allergies since middle school. Same with my asthma. I've not had an attack in six years, but every time I go in, I end up with a sample or a new prescription for it.
Medication is a good, viable option, and not some sort of 'weak' way out of a problem, by a long shot. That being said, I'm also against 'well... you could have X, so we'll just go ahead and give you Y to make sure.' That might work nice and well in diagnostic medicine, but it shouldn't be the norm.
Now, to focus more on the OP:
It's one thing to learn to cope with things, but there are some severe forms of medical depression (versus just feeling a little down and out), that may require medication for the individual to live a 'normal' life, emotionally speaking.
As for the enforcing the medicating of ADD/ADHD students in schools, if they're taking medicine without a need for it, then it is a failure of their doctor, not the school, to properly treat the child. And, Kvn, given the sheer number of kids on medication for ADD/ADHD/depression/etc now, I would call that more a coincidence, or a case in point that the use of the medication was what was keeping the child in check.
And as for the drugs never being tested on children, that's more a safety issue/FDA thing. They highly frown upon drug experimentation on young children. That being said, we know little to nothing about how the brain works, and instead have only concluded that when we give X drug to someone, they usually respond in Y way. Basically, guesswork with a MD.
-
Unfortunately the question posed is a black and white issue. Should they be able to? Yes, or no. Depending on your point of view, the black and white may be flipped, but it is still a black and white question none-the-less. Few things in life are black and white, many questions in life, however, are.
-
You name it, I'll look into it. I'm staring at Gamestop's website right now, trying to find some games to play to hold me over until later in the year when all the new shiny games drop.
Failing that, I may just go re-play ME2.
-
And seriously. If this young girl can hold a spider:
http://ihatepeacocks.com/resources/goliath-birdeater-spider.jpg
then im pretty sure the dentist will be fine. :P
Hmm... big spider. Cool. All I ever see are like the size of my thumb. WTB Shelob?
-
For every success story you find, I can find story upon story of foster care gone wrong, cases of abuse, neglect by the foster parents, including some we've already discussed in the topic so far.
-
high blood cholesterol- get your diet in check, problem solved
gout- severe arthritis, more or less, controllable by lowering uric acid levels with a proper diet
And who will make sure that the child maintains a proper diet?
The parents who, by neglect, allowed the child to get morbidly obese in the first place?
Yeah, I'm sure that will work out just fine.
Same way social services does well being checks on children. If it works so great now, why wouldn't it work for your plan too?
Yes, that was meant to be sarcastic.
-
Dark, the glaring light burned my eyes.
-
We should break up a family... just to make sure the kid doesn't get diabetes? I'm sorry, I don't follow that logic at all. I'm talking, severely, morbidly, immediately life-threateningly obese.
As I stated earlier in the thread
so obese that it is directly threatening his/her healthother associated illnessesHigh blood pressure- treatable (easily) with medication, high blood cholesterol- get your diet in check, problem solved, Type 2 Diabetes - non-insulin dependent form of diabetes, it can be easily managed and controlled with attention, heart disease and congestive heart failure- the only really dangerous issue I see on this list, but can also be caused by numerous other things, including medication prescribed on a shockingly regular basis which has the risk of heart disease and congestive heart failure as a side-effect, gout- severe arthritis, more or less, controllable by lowering uric acid levels with a proper diet, osteoarthritis- arthritis in the joints, more or less, can be relieved with medication, but not 'cured', increased risk for some types of cancer, pregnancy complications, and poor reproductive health, on the females part.
While illnesses of any severity are not good, there is only one on that list I would consider life-threatening, heart disease and congestive heart failure. If the child becomes at risk of those, that would be when I consider it allowable to step in.
Left wing hypocrisy on Obama
in Debates
Posted
*cough*
Left wing hypocrisy on Obama Why is it OK to support these things?
*cough*
Might have wanted to phrase your thread title a little better, then.
They support him because he's the President. And he hasn't had sex with an aid yet, wiretapped a hotel, or anything like that to really make people mad. Hypocrisy is expected of politicians by now. Catch up on your cynicism.