Browsing this Thread:
2 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
 
|
It's the law.
Posted on: 2010/7/22 3:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
 
|
who gives a shit about any of that?
he's right that the EMTs should continue triving to revive the child until a doctor says no go. it's quite simply not in an EMTs training or skill set or position - occupationally or morally - to determine otherwise. for instance, if the bathtub water was cold on order to cool off in the summer, perhaps hypothermia would yield a lucky result for the child. not knowing about such facts... the EMT should keep trying to revive the unlucky kid. on everything else, robotjustin shows greater intellect and depth in his argument, as well as more passion. some others like Slacky were pretty emphatic and smart about it their only fault was thinking the person on the other end of the internet really gives a damn or could ever give a little
Posted on: 2010/7/21 17:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
wow, Justin, you have managed to prove over and over nothing more than the fact that you are an idiot. Instead of focusing on anything important, you pick at each little thing you can, and then go off on some other completely stupid tangent. The crusades were "defensive", seriously? Thats ridiculous, and I think everyone else has spent enough time describing why.
Posted on: 2010/7/21 13:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
how about faith on faith, which seems much more in line with the OT?
Posted on: 2010/7/17 0:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Slacky wrote:
Quote:
Actually, the excerpt I quoted from the Wikipedia article says, explicitly, that: "The Crusades were fought mainly by Western European forces (taking place after the East-West Schism and mostly before the Protestant Reformation) against Muslims occupying the near east." So, my frame was obvious if you bothered to read what I quoted, instead of inserting the obviously extraneous information you jumped to in an attempt to obfuscate my central contention that the Crusades were a defensive action. As I've already stated, and as my quotation from Wikipedia definitely shows, I am concerned solely with the Western / Muslim kerfuffle in the Middle East. This is also what is most commonly thought of when people mention the Crusades. Quote: Your argument is that because what would become the Holy Roman Empire had once offensively taken control of the Holy Land then any military action to regain control of that land, hundreds of years down the line and after being conquered and retaken many times over, is defensive. It's not an argument in history, but an argument from history. And saying "what would become the Holy Roman Empire" is like trying to find a lineage between Ghenghis Khan and Mao. Quote: Put simply, if you're a pagan and you steal an apple from a Jew, the Jew steals it back, you steal it back from him, he steals it back from you, you steal it back from him, a couple of hundred years pass, you see a burning cross in the sky and you're now a Christian, a Muslim steals the apple, you steal it back, the Muslim steals it from you again, a few hundred years pass while a bunch of Muslims steal the apple from each other and you then decide that you now want back that apple that you initially stole from a Jew over 1000 years ago because it is culturally relevant to your adopted religion, then yes, that is an offensive act. You?re willing to somehow conflate the actual Roman empire with, 800 years later, the ?Holy Roman Empire,? but then disconnect them in terms of land ownership. Were they a monolithic entity existing as one throughout all time, or not? Which is it? Were the Christians feeding themselves to the lions? You?re ability to run off a time-line is amusing, but lacking depth, context, or nuance. What a joke! The frame is not a 1000 years, but, again referencing the excellent Wikipedia article, ?the Rashidun Caliphs had captured Jerusalem from Christian Byzantium in 638 AD, but had allowed Christians passage to Christian shrines. The less tolerant Seljuk Turks conquered the area from their Muslim neighbors in In 1065 AD and were continuing to expand into Anatolia. Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont in 1095? roughly 425 years. And during that time, there was a constant barrage against Europe. A fantastic timeline of Muslim crusades can be found here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/1 ... about_islamic_crusad.html The idea that the Crusades were unprovoked or offensive is easily put to death by the facts of history. Quote:
I don?t recall mentioning any particular religious affiliations I may or may not have in this thread, and certainly haven't infused religion into the conversation at all. But it seems that in your extreme prejudice you can do nothing but. As for ?pro-life,? that descriptor is typically applied to those who are against abortion, and is certainly not properly used to describe those who don?t think EMTs should have the right to drown children at the whim of blowhards on JCLIST. Further, there are plenty of non-religious people who are themselves pro-life (atheist Nat Hentoff comes immediately to mind) or who deem abortion to be murder (if a necessary murder, as atheist Camille Paglia argues.) As for medical facts, I can only assume that if you had a child, and found him or her face-down in a swimming pool, you?d do everything you could to save that child?s life, regardless of any theories you might cling to in the luxury of your unchallenged rationalism
Posted on: 2010/7/17 0:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Firstly you did not refer to any particular crusade, you referred to the Crusades. Furthermore you did not quote from the Wikipedia article on the first Crusade, you quoted from the article on the Crusades. For the sake of argument and because I am such a swell guy I'm prepared to focus on the first Crusade. Your argument is that because what would become the Holy Roman Empire had once offensively taken control of the Holy Land then any military action to regain control of that land, hundreds of years down the line and after being conquered and retaken many times over, is defensive. This has to be the weakest argument in history, literally. Put simply, if you're a pagan and you steal an apple from a Jew, the Jew steals it back, you steal it back from him, he steals it back from you, you steal it back from him, a couple of hundred years pass, you see a burning cross in the sky and you're now a Christian, a Muslim steals the apple, you steal it back, the Muslim steals it from you again, a few hundred years pass while a bunch of Muslims steal the apple from each other and you then decide that you now want back that apple that you initially stole from a Jew over 1000 years ago because it is culturally relevant to your adopted religion, then yes, that is an offensive act. If your views on this and your pro-life hysteria aren't driven by your Catholicism then what is it? Because it certainly isn't historical or medical facts.
Posted on: 2010/7/16 23:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
FDS_JC wrote:
Quote:
1. There are more than one dictionary, and mine is obviously superior to yours because it's more expansive. 2. No correlation between economics and ideology? Really? Ever heard of, I dunno, Capitalism? Marxism? How about Marxism? What about Keynes? Socialism? What about Ludwig von Mises? No ideology there? Really? You've never heard of a relation between economics and ideology... Question - have you ever heard of a relation between empty space and a hole?
Posted on: 2010/7/16 22:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Huh? There's no ground for comparison. The Holy Land was conquered by the Moslem's, and the Europeans tried to reclaim it. If the 5 Nations, for example, waged a full-scale war on the US, then it'd be an apt comparison. I don't see your point.
Posted on: 2010/7/16 22:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I use wikipedia because it's an easily accessible and verifiable source, and one that is more or less reliable.
Posted on: 2010/7/16 21:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I'll simplify it for you, Slacky.
And BTW, this has nothing to do with faith or no-faith. Just amazed at how people mis-quote history constantly. Whether or not you support the Catholic Church presently or historically is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Church-controlled land was occupied by Muslims, and, around 300 years later, the Church approved the secular reclamation of those lands. Or are you claiming that the Muslim seizure of the Holy Land was not an offensive act? Question - are current efforts by Palestinians to reclaim Palestine defensive or offensive? Muslim armies under the Rashidun Caliphs had captured Jerusalem from Christian Byzantium in 638 AD, but had allowed Christians passage to Christian shrines. The less tolerant Seljuk Turks conquered the area from their Muslim neighbors in In 1065 AD and were continuing to expand into Anatolia. Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont in 1095 in response to a call for aid from the Byzantine Emperor Alexus I to halt both the harassment and murder of Christians and the destruction of Christian holy places and churches by the Turks. Simple history. The fact that long centuries past has no bearing on whether this was an offensive or defensive action. Finally, I was referring specifically to actions in the Holy Land, and not subsequent events that may be labeled Crusades as well. Simply put - if you steal my apple, and I try to take it back, am I acting offensively or defensively?
Posted on: 2010/7/16 21:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
robot, how did you ever prove a point in the days before wikipedia? (not that you've proven any since...)
Posted on: 2010/7/16 21:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/10/19 1:18 Last Login : 2020/9/25 20:40 From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1609
 |
Quote:
You mean like how the Europeans came here to "defend" their future strip malls and fast food chains from the native americans?
Posted on: 2010/7/16 21:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Yes, well done.
I see nothing there that indicates the Crusades were defensive. In fact if you'd have quoted the subsequent paragraphs we could have read - "The term Crusade is also used to describe contemporaneous and subsequent campaigns conducted through to the 16th century in territories outside the Levant[1] usually against pagans, heretics, and peoples under the ban of excommunication[2] for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons." "Campaigns were also waged against pagan Slavs, pagan Balts, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the various popes." How was the Albigensian crusade, which saw the elimination of the pacifist Cathars in southern France, defensive? It seems to me that you base a lot of your opinions on your faith and then tie yourself in knots trying to prove them with real world facts. Faith is no substitute for knowledge.
Posted on: 2010/7/16 21:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
From Wikipedia: Since the Middle Ages, wars sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Muslims, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication, have been called Crusades. The specific crusades to restore Christian control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291. Other campaigns in Spain and Eastern Europe continued into the 15th century. The Crusades were fought mainly by Western European forces (taking place after the East-West Schism and mostly before the Protestant Reformation) against Muslims occupying the near east. Muslim armies under the Rashidun Caliphs had captured Jerusalem from Christian Byzantium in 638 AD, but had allowed Christians passage to Christian shrines. The less tolerant Seljuk Turks conquered the area from their Muslim neighbors in In 1065 AD and were continuing to expand into Anatolia. Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont in 1095 in response to a call for aid from the Byzantine Emperor Alexus I to halt both the harassment and murder of Christians and the destruction of Christian holy places and churches by the Turks.
Posted on: 2010/7/16 20:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Yes, of course it was. And the Inquisition was nothing more than a fact finding mission.
Posted on: 2010/7/16 20:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You do realize that the Crusades were defensive and not offensive, right?
Posted on: 2010/7/16 19:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I can't believe nobody has commented on this yet...Genius, Mike! Can we get back on topic now and talk more about the pot-smoking lesbian babysitters?
Posted on: 2010/7/16 14:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
I suppose thats true. They did function to greatly enrich the church as well as the various kingdoms and independent groups (Knights Templar etc.) involved. I love how way off topic this thread has become!
Posted on: 2010/7/15 18:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/2/3 21:36 Last Login : 2020/4/18 19:17 From Way Downtown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1300
|
Quote:
even the crusades were fought for territory and control of resources.
Posted on: 2010/7/15 16:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
We may be splitting hairs here, but I believe that despite the fact that in the majority of those examples the US was fighting against communist nations, the cause of the conflicts were not ideological. The US was not endeavoring to stop the spread of communism because it was unjust and repressive, but rather because we were in competition against the USSR and China which were quickly rising to challenge us as superpowers in their own right; and therefore represented a security risk as well as a major competitor for natural resources. Here is where our argument gets tricky, perhaps the only reason that we were competing against and not allied with those nations, was because of opposing ideologies; but does that mean the conflicts and proxy-conflicts we engaged in were ideological in nature? I don\'t believe so. In the case of Panama the US needed to reinforce it\'s control over the region as a whole as well as the canal in particular. If we were truly offended by Noriega\'s actions as dictator we wouldn\'t have supported him before he went rogue, he only became a problem ideologically when he stopped doing what we told him. The justification for being in Iraq as spreading democracy is nothing but a hollow justification for a war that never really was about \"wmd\". As for the war on terror, I don\'t see this as an ideological conflict either. Al Quaeda and other islamic terror groups present a very real security threat to the US, and while they are motivated by purely ideological reasons, our motivation to stop them is not; after all they are the very same people we funded and trained in the 80\'s, when they were religious \"freedom fighters\" battling the godless soviets. In each case a concrete benefit could be realized by becoming, and remaining engaged in conflict. I\'m probably forgetting something, but its hard for me to come up with any purely ideological wars since the crusades.
Posted on: 2010/7/15 13:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/10/19 1:18 Last Login : 2020/9/25 20:40 From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1609
|
Quote:
The initiation of the embargo was first and foremost ideologically driven and secondarily in protest to the potential harm to U.S.-related economic interests. Virtually all of U.S. foreign policy 1946-1990 was ideologically driven, no? Korea. Vietnam. Cambodia. Afghanistan in the '80s. Iraq in the '80s. To a lesser extent, Panama in '89. And what was the rebranding of Iraq after WMD didn't show up? Didn't that become an exercise in "delivering democracy"? Look - I'm not naive - I'll agree that Iraq is about oil. But the others? You have to admit that for a half-century, the U.S. was very ideologically driven.
Posted on: 2010/7/14 23:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
The fact that the US has a history of fighting for its economic interest (more specifically the economic interest of the economic/social elite) does not mean its fighting to defend the ideologies which are used to justify the specific conflicts.
Cuba is an interesting case, but one which I believe does not change this. If it was ever in the economic interest of the US to lift its embargoes against Cuba they would be gone instantly. The continued existence of the embargo itself is due to the fact that its removal would bring no benefit to those responsible, on the contrary it would be a risky political move.
Posted on: 2010/7/14 21:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/10/19 1:18 Last Login : 2020/9/25 20:40 From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1609
|
Quote:
Sorry - perhaps individually some, or even all, of those events could be classified as protecting specific economic interests. But taken together, it IS defending an ideal. Capitalism. Open markets. Democracy. The U.S. has a long history of fighting FOR these principles - and they are ideologies. Just as they've fought AGAINST the spread of communism, marxism and totalitarianism. Isn't the Cuban Embargo, outdated and sad though it may be, effectively an act of war? The only reason why it doesn't lead to actual physical conflict is because Cuba isn't strong enough to fight back.
Posted on: 2010/7/14 21:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
I understand what you're saying, it is cruel to revive a baby knowing the child will be a vegetable. But there's two sides to the story.....
Giving a chance to revive the dead is what doctors/EMT do. It's there duty. It's not for the doctors/EMT to judge what will happen afterward if they revive/cure the patient. If a criminal was shot by a cop, should the doctor let the criminal bleed to death because they know once they're recovered they'll do harm to the public again? I really wish they can (many of them deserves it) but it's not in there profession to do so, then what's the difference of being a murderer? It's their job to revive/cure the patient and it's the family or judge to decide what to do with them afterward. Doc's and EMT do what they're best at, giving any type of chance to bring the person back.
Posted on: 2010/7/14 20:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/2/3 21:36 Last Login : 2020/4/18 19:17 From Way Downtown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1300
|
Quote:
Agreed! Wait...define "decent." Because, from what I've read, none of robotjustin's name-calling rants on this thread come close to decency.
Posted on: 2010/7/14 19:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Actually - " i?de?ol?o?gy [ahy-dee-ol-uh-jee, id-ee-] Show IPA ?noun, plural -gies. 1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group. 2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation. 3. Philosophy . a. the study of the nature and origin of ideas. b. a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation. 4. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature." I guess it all depends on who you ask, but I have never heard "ideology" used in relation to economics, and besides the proper use of the word isn't really relevant when it was very obvious what was meant of my use of it. Besides, it doesn't change my point, which is the fact that the US doesn't fight ideological wars, economic or otherwise. Non of the conflicts mentioned were fought solely over an economic belief system, they had concrete benefits which could be realized. By the way, nice job distracting from what I was originally pointing out- the fact that you clearly have no grasp of history; as evidenced by your description of the cause of ww2. Throwing pseudo academic descriptions at us every chance you get doesn't prove you more intelligent or knowledgeable than anyone else here, it just proves that you are a decent bullsh*tter.
Posted on: 2010/7/14 19:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
FDS_JC wrote:
Quote:
Wow. So the one person doesn't know the difference between alive and dead, and FDS doesn't understand that economics IS ideology. ideology |ˌīdēˈ?ləjē; ˌidē-| noun 1 ( pl. -gies) a system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy : the ideology of republicanism. Geniuses, all around.
Posted on: 2010/7/14 17:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets jail
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
My point exactly. Those were not about defending democracy against communism, they were about defending American economic interests from regimes unfriendly to those interests.
Posted on: 2010/7/14 15:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/27 12:04 Last Login : 2016/7/1 9:09 From Southern JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1205
|
Quote:
Slacky wrote: Bill Hicks predicted this - "If you're so pro-life, do me a favour: don't lock arms and block medical clinics. If you're so pro-life, lock arms and block cemeteries."
Posted on: 2010/7/13 1:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lincoln Park: Baby-sitter who drugged, drank & had sex with girlfriend while baby drowned gets
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Bill Hicks predicted this -
"If you're so pro-life, do me a favour: don't lock arms and block medical clinics. If you're so pro-life, lock arms and block cemeteries."
Posted on: 2010/7/13 1:31
|
|||
|
||||