prev <-> next
[2012-01-31 10:23:22] - http://imageshack.us/f/813/alignmentchartby4thehor.jpg/ It's a little hard to read the captions, but I enjoyed this picture which provides sci-fi and fantasy examples for the D&D alignments. -Paul
[2012-01-31 09:58:46] - mig: I think that's what that person was referring to, though, how they knew that when they were talking to a random Krogan leader on Tuchanka, that it was really supposed to be Wrex. -Paul
[2012-01-31 09:57:54] - Though truth be told there were many problems with DA2's story that went beyond the retconning. - mig
[2012-01-31 09:57:35] - mig: Hah, I guess we had the exact same thought.
-Paul[2012-01-31 09:57:19] - mig: I agree that there is no real retconning that I'm aware of in ME2, but at the same time, I was kinda disappointed how certain seemingly major decisions from ME1 (mainly the council and surviving squad-mates) were so diminished. ME2 basically plays out the exact same no matter your ME1 decisions, you just might be given some information by different people. -Paul
[2012-01-31 09:55:43] - The big problem with ME2 was that the choices you made carried over, but while they could have been hugely impactful in how you played through the 2nd game, all the results of your choices were deliberately minimized in impact to the point it was either just a passing mention that you did x or having 1 conversation with someone about doing y in the first game. - mig
[2012-01-31 09:53:01] - there's no retconning in ME2 that I'm aware of. The Leiliana retcon (depending on how you played through DA1) was a really huge deal. - mig
[2012-01-31 09:02:01] - aaron: In fact, I don't see how they could've intended to carry it on considering how differently Dragon Age could end up depending on how you played it. -Paul
[2012-01-31 09:01:26] - aaron: Yeah, I don't really know if there is any true retconning in ME2, just disappointing things like have Wrex replaced by a generic Krogan. I think the reason is because they always intended Mass Effect to be a trilogy whereas I don't know if they had the same intent with Dragon Age. -Paul
[2012-01-31 08:24:24] - paul: good article, it sounds like ME2 handled the "retconning" stuff better than Dragon Age, which is weird because didn't Dragon Age come out after? - aaron
[2012-01-30 17:53:47] - http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/121/1217463p1.html Spoilers for the Mass Effect and Dragon Age games, but I agree with a lot of what this person writes about in terms of freedom vs cannon story in Bioware games. -Paul
[2012-01-30 16:56:13] - mig/p: thanks for the references. I'll check them both out, and it's nice to see options from a company other than Dell. Particularly since Dell bought Alienware since I last bought a PC. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-30 14:52:49] - Nina: I think it's a good idea, I just can't think of a field large enough by my place that would work. Gurkie is right, though, we could play basketball instead.
-Paul[2012-01-30 14:24:24] - oh, who was who. nm. ~a
[2012-01-30 14:24:06] - who wasnt in them? ~a
[2012-01-30 14:21:58] - subtitle: been awhile since our last Diplomacy game. I'm having trouble remembering who was who in them now. -Daniel
[2012-01-30 13:31:02] - paul/g: i was just thinking it would be convenient to run around your house, then walk over and watch the game, rather than make two stops. i like driving less. but, don't make changes on account of me. -nina
[2012-01-30 12:59:06] - urls are sensitive. domain names are insensitive. for instance: http://APORTER.ORG/msg/ works but http://aporter.org/MSG/ does not. ~a
[2012-01-30 12:50:44] - xpovos: a starcraft podcast that I listen to likes to pimp Doghouse systems. They sponser the podcast, so obviously they're a little biased when the people hosting the show talk about how awesome they are, but they could be worth checking out at the very least. - mig
[2012-01-30 12:38:19] - I feel like domain names should not be case sensitive... But I am not sure... ~g
[2012-01-30 12:15:53] - are domain names case sensitve? I could type http://SLAsHdOT.OrG and it would still work ..... but I don't know if it's the browser resolving that for me. - mig
[2012-01-30 12:15:02] - boo! I have never noticed that before... ~g
[2012-01-30 12:12:51] - g: yes, they're case sensitive. some web sites with notoriously short URLs (like imgur) rely on URLs to be case-sensitive in order to have a very diverse set of short URLs - aaron
[2012-01-30 12:12:17] - g: it actually depends on what's processing the url. - mig
[2012-01-30 11:44:58] - URL's should not be case sensitive... Right? ~g
[2012-01-30 10:57:51] - bah redundancy! - mig
[2012-01-30 10:57:15] - It would warrant something more than a "no comment" but it sounds like the state department might be wokring on it. I'm not sure how much obama personally needs to involve himself personally, unless this starts dragging out for a ridiculous amount of time or it gets escalated into criminal prosecutions. - mig
[2012-01-30 10:49:27] - context for those unfamiliar with the story - http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/01/26/145921407/americans-barred-from-leaving-egypt-include-secretary-lahoods-son -Daniel
[2012-01-30 10:48:51] - Anyone on this board think that LaHood's son not being allowed to leave Egypt is a big enough deal to merit response? A coworker of mine was disparaging Obama for not being "strong" enough to deal with the situation but that seems dumb since I'm not sure the situation needs dealing with as it currently stands. -Daniel
[2012-01-30 10:12:09] - Xpovos: For what it's worth, I went with Digital Storm and have been pleased with my purchase. It'll almost certainly be more expensive, but I get to pick exactly what I wanted, so it felt like a compromise between building my own and getting a pre-built one. -Paul
[2012-01-30 10:11:34] - you all could play volleyball, tennis, or basketball instead and there are courts for each
~g[2012-01-30 09:57:06] - Paul: I anticipate I'll be buying a pre-built. I'd like to keep the construction skills up, but honestly, it's not worth it. Dell's prices are about the same as ordering piecemeal, and I know it will work, etc. But I know that my best PC purchases have come after a long period of research to get exactly the right hardware. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-30 09:41:27] - Xpovos: I was so far behind in computer hardware that when it came time to get a new PC for SC2, I just paid a company to build it for me. Sorry, I won't be of much help. -Paul
[2012-01-30 09:40:58] - nina: There are a few fields I can think of, although I don't know if any are large enough (or flat enough) for the game. Was there a specific one you were thinking of? -Paul
[2012-01-30 09:22:08] - a/paul: if you're planning on doing frisbee this weekend, isn't there a field within walking distance of paul's that we could use before the game? -nina
[2012-01-30 09:04:54] - I'm behind on computer hardware by a lot. I haven't had to build a new PC in years. It looks like Intel has just released (this month) a line of new processors that look pretty excellent. Does anyone have some recent experience that I could distill? -- Xpovos
[2012-01-30 07:35:05] - sure ~a
[2012-01-29 22:09:11] - a: Just as a heads up, I was hoping to have a super bowl party this coming Sunday, which starts at 5pm, so if you plan frisbee for the same day, do you think you could make it a little earlier? -Paul
[2012-01-27 15:38:16] - but yeah there was a stretch where the ps3 was on a 1 firmwire update/month schedule. - mig
[2012-01-27 15:08:36] - I don't really know if that's good or bad. Being primarily a PC gamer I've grown accustomed to the idea and have fully embraced the overlords at Steam. - mig
[2012-01-27 15:07:32] - nina: if everything goes digital there will be no used games market, at least not for anything relased afterwords. - mig
[2012-01-27 14:47:13] - mig: so if you think the future is downloadable content, do you think the used game market will die? -nina
[2012-01-27 14:46:48] - aaron: pierce and i have the same issue, which now that you mention it, probably discouraged us from gaming on the PS3 more often. it just gets tiring if every time you happen to use your PS3, you have to sit around waiting for updates. -nina
[2012-01-27 10:13:57] - mig: yeah, i only use my playstation once every couple weeks or so, so i might just be an edge case. - aaron
[2012-01-27 10:11:06] - I mean I'm not sure how the console can handle it any better, honestly. - mig
[2012-01-27 10:06:42] - aaron: well i remember there was a time where there was a flurry of updates to the PS3 firmware, and if you hadn't used your ps3 in a while that could have been a culmination of like 3 or 4 updates + whatever title updates happened to LBP2 (which seems to get title updates more frequently than other games I've noticed). I think you just got unlucky there. - mig
[2012-01-27 09:57:12] - mig: but... yeah on that, it's kind of sad that the playstation 3 is still in the stage where, i can't be guaranteed to play a game without 24-hours notice... last time vinnie came over and we wanted to try out some LBP2 levels, there was a 600MB update which took more than 3 hours so we didn't get to play - aaron
[2012-01-27 09:55:16] - last couple games i purchased, seemed like they went more like, "authorize payment, download game", or at least close enough to that that it didn't really bother me. although i guess to be fair, the process still took multiple days, due to the speed of the downloads, and needing to do two large updates (one to access the store, and one to play the game) - aaron
[2012-01-27 09:51:48] - mig: yes, i think PSN honestly might have already improved its process during the PS3's lifespan, although I might just be misremembering. but, i thought the first couple games i bought were a pain in the ass with like, a multi-step process like, "add funds to wallet, authorize payment, purchase game, authorize purchase, download game" or something like that.. - aaron
[2012-01-27 09:08:51] - PSN has used real $ since its inception. The only thing I'm annoyed about is that it still makes you use a "wallet" before you can make purchases but otherwise it's fine. - mig
[2012-01-27 09:05:37] - aaron: I heard Xbox was getting rid of its Xbox Points soon in order to be able to offer stuff for mobile devices or something. -Daniel
[2012-01-26 22:52:24] - Nina: Nice, thank you. Also, 18+'s tongue disturbs me for some reason. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-26 17:27:12] - i think the next generation of consoles will encourage this by improving their online stores, making the purchase process more seamless (maybe getting rid of console-specific currency?) and making it more obvious when your friends are playing a cool new game that you don't own, kind of like steam does - aaron
[2012-01-26 17:23:49] - nina: i think we'll see a gradual increase in the quantity/quality/price-point of downloadable titles (so instead of seeing Castle Crashers for $10, we'll eventually see stuff like Street Fighter IV for $25) but, i don't think the consoles will do this by doing something drastic like, "no physical media" or "portable kiosks only" - aaron
[2012-01-26 16:50:39] - nina: i'm not sure it will happen in this generation of consoles, but I think the eventual endgame is getting rid of physical discs and going 100% digitial distribution for consoles. - mig
[2012-01-26 16:25:02] - aaron: what kind of scenarios do you think will be coming? -nina
[2012-01-26 15:38:24] - I just got a response to an email that reads... "Yes, we ask!" which I assume is the same as saying "yes we will ask" not that the response was yes... Which would maybe make sense except that the person had previously replied to my email and me to their reply.... and this was the second reply to the first email... so confused ~g
[2012-01-26 15:36:38] - mig: oh yeah, i wasn't saying that you presented the article incorrectly. i just think it's interseting in that there's one sentence of actual content (taken from kotaku apparently) and then a couple pages of cool "what if" scenarios that guys like you and i could think up - aaron
[2012-01-26 14:44:20] - aaron: that's why I said, "rumors abound" and not "next MS console will definitely get rid of used games." - mig
[2012-01-26 14:38:40] - mig: cheap/easy enough for that model to work.if they go the steam route and offer massively-discounted titles, i could see it happening - aaron
[2012-01-26 14:38:16] - mig: the only content in that article is "one reliable industry source suggested that the successor to Microsoft's Xbox 360 will prevent used games from being played..." everything else is speculation. the "PSP Go" already tried the online-only approach, and didn't nintendo have a handheld that did that too? it'll be interesting to see if anybody can make it - aaron
[2012-01-26 14:10:34] - http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2012/01/how-the-next-xbox-could-stop-you-from-playing-used-games.ars rumors abounding that next gen consoles looking for ways to cut out used games. - mig
[2012-01-26 12:39:40] - haha, for 18+ content, no extra charge! ~a
[2012-01-26 12:29:35] - xpovos: this is one artist's price guide. http://www.paledogstudios.com/commissions/ -nina
[2012-01-26 12:26:03] - xpovos: start low, most creative people have poor self-esteem
but yeah for a comic page i think that sounds like a good range, comics involve a lot of extra work. - aaron[2012-01-26 11:56:42] - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/nyregion/on-latino-abuse-mayor-says-i-might-have-tacos.html East Haven mayor's response to systematic police abuse on latino citizens: “I might have tacos when I go home. I’m not sure yet.” Hilarity and outrage (mostly outrage) ensue. - mig
[2012-01-26 11:53:29] - a: regarding "arrests of journalists", i think we're entering a really gray area these days on how we define journalists. i'm sure a lot of bloggers consider themselves journalists. -nina
[2012-01-26 11:19:40] - Xpovos: Yeah, I still believe in the stock, but I'm a little shaken from the roller coaster recently. I'm thinking of selling now, but keeping an eye on it to potentially buy later. -Paul
[2012-01-26 11:12:20] - Paul: Yeah, I think that might be a good idea. No that it can't maintain or even expand on this, potentially, I imagine the profit is enough to warrant selling out and trying something else. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-26 11:11:44] - g: More like a painting, though it'll be comic book page style, I think. It's the end product of an extremely convoluted series of coincidences that end with a humorous result for some of the people involved... namely me. So, I'm paying for a big inside joke. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-26 11:11:27] - xpovos: wow that is quite the turn around. - mig
[2012-01-26 10:56:51] - xpovos: are you commisioning a comic strip? Of a couple pages, or a painting? just curious... ~g
[2012-01-26 10:53:40] - Xpovos: Yup, although I might not by the end of today.
-Paul[2012-01-26 10:52:11] - Wow.... Paul, do you still have those shares of Netflix? -- Xpovos
[2012-01-26 10:21:27] - aaron: I found this as well. http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=244826 So it sounds like what I'm asking for should be in the $100 to $250 range. Now I just have to decide what number in there represents fairness to both the artist any myself. Yay. Thanks. -- Xpovos'
[2012-01-26 10:09:17] - xpovos: that should be "over the years", i haven't been that busy over the past 26 days
- aaron[2012-01-26 10:08:39] - xpovos: yeah i've taken about 30-40 commissions for art over the year and i've commissioned other artists. for something "polished looking" like a high-res color logo or mascot for a website, i'd say you should ballpark somewhere like $30-$50 or so, but of course it depends on the size/quality/complexity of the piece - aaron
[2012-01-26 09:45:21] - aaron has. ~a
[2012-01-26 09:25:56] - Anyone ever commissioned artwork? I'm negotiating with an artist to do a piece, but he's put me on the spot to name a price. I don't have (and can't find on the web yet) a ballpark. I can't afford a lot, but I don't want to give him an insulting offer, either. I know a lot will depend on final quality, etc. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-25 16:33:57] - how is this not quid pro quo? ~a
[2012-01-25 15:08:55] - a: there were some incidents of indiscriminate arresting/assaulting by police that did involve journalists, yes. - mig
[2012-01-25 15:04:02] - due to "arrests of journalist covering Occupy Wall Street protests". i didn't know there were arrests of journalists. ~a
[2012-01-25 14:53:21] - http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/news/zimbabwe/55818/2011--2012-worldwide-press.html?utm_source=thezim&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=listarticle&utm_content=he USA falls 27 places on worldwide press freedom index (47th) - aaron
[2012-01-25 12:02:02] - i wonder if i was very close to his motorcade from the wh to congress on my way up. ~a
[2012-01-25 11:07:08] - http://news.yahoo.com/full-text-state-union-211219404.html SOTU transcript. - mig
[2012-01-25 11:06:18] - I'm not sure I could narrow it down to one. I added my own rule of "mentioning fair share" which might have won out. False choices probably was 2nd. - mig
[2012-01-25 11:02:35] - which rule caused you the most drinks? i went out to black cat last night so didn't get to catch the sotu. ~a
[2012-01-25 11:01:42] - "mentions false choices, or presents a false choice himself." hah nice. i'm happy when society is better at recognizing false choices. ~a
[2012-01-25 10:58:28] - http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/24/there-are-those-who-say-drink-play-along i followed these, loosely. - mig
[2012-01-25 10:55:55] - what were the rules? ~a
[2012-01-25 10:55:03] - So I got totally hammered last night playing a SOTUS drinking game, did anyone else? - mig
[2012-01-24 21:26:31] - a: paul was saying "effectively repealing" rather than actually appealing, although I dont understand the mechanics of it all,,, ~g
[2012-01-24 16:24:27] - you can't repeal a verdict, as far as i know. ~a
[2012-01-24 16:15:30] - And wikipedia says, "Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion" -Paul
[2012-01-24 16:13:13] - aaron: I don't know how Rand's position differs from Ron's, but this is from Ron Paul's website: "Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade...by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”" -Paul
[2012-01-24 15:50:53] - yeah, except a lawmaker can't repeal a supreme court ruling. i.e. he wants it to be a state's rights issue. but since he can't affect supreme court rulings, all he has is a hammer: the law/amendment hammer. ~a
[2012-01-24 15:25:07] - a: that's different from ron's position right? doesn't ron believe in repealing Roe v Wade to make it solely a state's rights issue? - aaron
[2012-01-24 14:03:07] - ah i looked it up. he proposes an amendment and the "Life at Conception Act". i see. ~a
[2012-01-24 14:02:26] - paul: really, wow. what is rand's position? ~a
[2012-01-24 14:02:01] - so maybe we should have had this conversation on facebook
~a[2012-01-24 14:01:57] - Tying in with another link from yesterday, I think Rand Paul was actually on his way to speak at the march before he was detained by the TSA. -Paul
[2012-01-24 13:57:14] - g: Adrian posted a comment to Katie's wall post with an article about the March. I didn't want to have this debate on Facebook, for obvious reasons. One less obvious reason is that I'm more pro-abortion than much of my family, and I really don't want to try to deal with the issue on two fronts at the same time. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 13:56:05] - g: i think xpovos brought it up, something about a march which i was unaware of - aaron
[2012-01-24 13:52:35] - on another note, what brought this conversation up? I see a reference to a march and then there is all this convo about abortion and I missed the connection. ~g
[2012-01-24 13:50:12] - xpovos: I see I misinterpreted "In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court abandoned Roe's strict trimester framework.[10] Instead adopting the standard of undue burden for evaluating state abortion restrictions" to add limitations not remove them. Also Roe was 24 I think. ~g
[2012-01-24 13:49:35] - xpovos: yeah that sounds about right. i was trying to figure out how many/which states allowed them, i think it's like... alaska? hawaii? colorado? it's hard for me to find a list. i think it's only 11 - aaron
[2012-01-24 13:48:36] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States is my source of info... ~g
[2012-01-24 13:46:56] - The 22 weeks is lower than the 28 weeks of Roe, though. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 13:46:37] - g: No, the plurality of "Casey" basically gave carte blanche on abortion til 22 weeks, saying that before viability the state had no interest and it was purely a woman's choice. After viablity the state might have an interest and laws could be written to protect that interest, provided they meet other tests. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 13:45:35] - oops, looks like roe v wade said legal during the first 2 trimesters not just the first... ~g
[2012-01-24 13:42:19] - after I asked the question I looked at wiki too, my understanding was roe v. wade made abortion legal up to the end of the first trimester in all states. the casey case made it so that while it is legal in all states in early term, they dont have to be legal until the end of the first trimester, theoretically they could say its legal for 4 weeks instead of 12. ~g
[2012-01-24 13:41:12] - Let me retry? "g: Abortion is legal up to and including birth in several states, as well as probably being constitutionally protected under the current understanding of the law in the remaining states. It is a rare event, but does happen, even though there are few providers in the country, they operate publicly and legally." -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 13:39:08] - Mm. I'm sorry, I take your point and will try to clarify future statements, within the limits of sentence structures and character limits at the very least. I am inclined to call marijuanna in California legal in many cases, even though that is strictly not true as well, so perhaps this is just a tendency of short-speak I have. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 13:37:50] - xpovos: yes, i agree, if you walk into an abortion clinic in virginia and say, "i want to give you a blow job", i think they will say yes, and will not require a physician's note - aaron
[2012-01-24 13:36:42] - xpovos: okay, so i think what you meant to say is, "While abortion is technically illegal for the second and third trimester, the laws are so easily circumvented that it may as well be legal". i think that's less misleading. a lot of my friends in california smoke weed with similar workarounds, but i wouldn't say, "smoking weed is legal in california" - aaron
[2012-01-24 13:35:36] - aaron: I'd actually probably argue that sodomy is more legal in VA than abortion is in many states. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 13:35:09] - xpovos: even though laws are technically on the books.... is it something like that? - aaron
[2012-01-24 13:34:47] - aaron: I understand you point, and normally, I'd agree, except that if all I need to do to claim extenuating circumstances is get one person to write me a note saying it's OK? Then sure, I can push you out of an airplane and say it was OK because the guy in the seat next to me said he was certain you were a terrorist. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 13:34:25] - xpovos: okay, so i gues you're acknowledging that there are laws restricting abortion, thus making abortion "illegal" in some circumstances - but you choose to disregard those laws, because you think they could be constitutionally challenged. i guess in the same way that i might consider sodomy to be legal in the state of virginia, - aaron
[2012-01-24 13:33:39] - and losing the case, which is a slim but real possibility, would be a huge blow which outweighs the potential gain from the suit. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 13:33:15] - That lawsuits haven't been brought does indicate the rarity of these types of abortions, which is something worth noting. But just because something is rare doesn't mean it doesn't happen and in this case with legal sanction. Also, the Pro-choice organizations don't want to bring the suits, generally, because these abortions are far less popular in public discourse,
[2012-01-24 13:32:41] - xpovos: what did you mean? it sounds like you're using "legal" as a synonym for, "legal under extenuating circumstances", in the same way that i could say, "pushing someone out of an airplane is legal", or "setting fire to a stranger's personal property is legal". that's a misleading way to speak, and it makes it difficult for me to understand your intent - aaron
[2012-01-24 13:32:01] - aaron: "All of the 36 state bans are believed by pro-choice organizations to be unconstitutional". Ignoring bias, they believe the bans are unconstitutional, generally because they try to restrict Doe's definition of health in some way. If suit were brought against them, I'm inclined to agree with Guttmacher that the laws would fall. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 13:29:06] - aaron: No, but I'll accept it as a clarification of my statement based on the definitions being used here. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 13:28:36] - aaron: Let me take one sentence and expand it, because the clarity is not there. "As of April 2007, 36 states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined by court order." That is, under Doe, bans on late-term abortions must have a health-exclusion. No state may ban all late term abortions. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 13:27:48] - xpovos: okay, so what i think you meant to say is, "Abortion is legal up to and during birth, if the health of the mother is in question," is that what you meant to say? - aaron
[2012-01-24 13:25:36] - xpovos: the second link is a better source, and basically confirms what i said, "it's a state by state thing" and 36 states have bans on late-term abortions while other states have more complex rules requiring physicians etc. - aaron
[2012-01-24 13:23:38] - aaron: You are right, though, states do have the right under Roe (and Doe, though Doe supercedes Roe frequently) to restrict abortion in the second and third trimester, and they do. But the "health" exemption always overrides any law. Which brings us to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 13:23:09] - xpovos: "doe v bolton" appears to be overturning a georgia law which placed a ban on all abortions. i don't think this supports your claim that second/third term abortions are legal.... - aaron
[2012-01-24 13:20:25] - Where health is broadly defined, "... in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health". -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 13:19:46] - aaron: OK, let me give some sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction. Doe makes IDX constitutionally legal (that is not prohibit-able by state law) in any circumstance where a doctor says it is for "health" {...} -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 13:18:11] - aaron: i might be wrong about this, but I don't think any state can make an abortion itself illegal, but they can place inane regulations on it (like the "waiting peroid" described in the reason article). It's like smoking weren't they can't explicitly make it illegal, but they craft laws to make smokers lives as miserable as possible. - mig
[2012-01-24 13:17:27] - xpovos: i only ask because you're kind of contradicting gurkie without giving a clear explanation as to why. did you think she would just accept, "oh, i'm just wrong" and not need a further explanation? it's kind of a weird way to converse with someone - aaron
[2012-01-24 13:15:57] - if the doctors "need" to know this, then we don't need legislation. if the doctors "need" to know this, then they will do it, no law needed. ~a
[2012-01-24 13:15:51] - "require an ultrasound 48 hours before every abortion. Such legislation sits at the top of the wish list for the Family Foundation – whose president, Victoria Cobb, contends it is meant to protect the 'safety of the mother' because the doctor needs to know 'exactly how old and large the unborn child is.'" bullshit. ~a
[2012-01-24 13:14:43] - xpovos: it's a state-by-state thing then? - aaron
[2012-01-24 13:00:44] - http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/24/do-we-need-a-law-to-make-people-think a bit of a tangent, but an interesting point being made in this article. - mig
[2012-01-24 12:54:02] - g: Abortion is legal up to and during birth. Not many providers perform late-term abortions, but they are legal. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 12:53:52] - xpovos: I also agree that the major disagreement you will find is saying that a fetus is equivelant to a person. Some cultures believe that the soul enters the fetus' body at a specific point and that is when it becomes equivalent to a person. ~g
[2012-01-24 12:41:24] - my understanding of the current law is... abortion is legal prior to 3 months... Which takes into account a lot of peoples concerns about that 1 day conceived vs 9 months old... ~g
[2012-01-24 09:39:25] - aaron: and if you're super important then you get lobbyists to inform your lawmakers on important topics that interest you using money? ~a
[2012-01-24 09:35:55] - xpovos: that's one advantage of basing the american court system on wealth! important people usuaully have a lot of money, and people with a lot of money usually get what they want - aaron
[2012-01-24 08:46:48] - But morally and legally we protect the schlub down the street just as much as we protect Einstein. We can't murder someone unimportant and say, "Well, he didn't matter." -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 08:45:54] - After the death of a child, we grieve for not just the lost life, but the lost potentiality, because we don't know if they would have been the next Einstein or even perhaps the next Osama bin Laden. That is, despite a moral equivalency between humans, we intrinsically and philosophically value some life more than others. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 08:44:25] - It seems to me that this is based on a similar logic about how we feel after the death of certain people. After the death of someone like an Einstein or Ghandi, we mourn a great loss. After the death of someone like Osama bin Laden, we celebrate, or at least are conflicted. After the death of an old person we feel sorrow, mixed with relief. {...} -- Xpovos
[2012-01-24 08:42:48] - I had a thought last night about the graduating humanity issue. That we seemed to have some form of consensus around a 3month fetus being less valuable than a 6 month fetus and so on until birth. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 15:47:10] - Xpovos: I think its fine to say both are wrong but currently you are more concerned with preventing/changing abortion than the death penalty. -Daniel
[2012-01-23 15:46:40] - it fails so badly, that sometimes abstinence fails even when you're not having sex. that's where the extra 10% comes from. plus i was approximating the actual figures anyways. ~a
[2012-01-23 15:45:02] - jokes. ~a
[2012-01-23 15:44:55] - mig:
-- Xpovos[2012-01-23 15:44:51] -
~a[2012-01-23 15:43:57] - xpovos: if adrian can say something fails 110% of the time, you can probably say you're 110% opposed to something i think. - mig
[2012-01-23 15:40:15] - How about, they're both wrong 100% of the time but I'm less willing to work hard to change people's minds about the death penalty? -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 15:38:13] - Daniel: So I dunno. Does that mean I'm 110% opposed to abortion? Or something less than 100% opposed to the death penalty? -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 15:37:17] - Daniel: Yes, but I'll be honest, I'm less opposed to it than I am to abortion. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 15:34:38] - paul: (wrt "improving the life of the aborted") - aaron
[2012-01-23 15:33:09] - paul: some cultures believe that in the case of a miscarriage, if you hold a certain ceremony afterwards, the baby which was miscarried "skips to the front of the line" the next time you get pregnant. i thought that was a really nice way to look at things like that. only slightly on-topic, but. - aaron
[2012-01-23 15:32:32] - Xpovos: Dunno if its possible to keep the answer to this small and not going off on other tangents but are you 100% opposed to the death penalty as well? -Daniel
[2012-01-23 15:32:05] - a: Well, to be clear, I think I still consider myself to be (barely) pro-choice in terms of abortion being legal. So if you're asking if a mother should be allowed to terminate a fetus whose delivery might put her life in danger, I would tend to say yes. -Paul
[2012-01-23 15:31:39] - I think I would give a similar answer to Paul's answer (the somewhere along the way it changes but I'm not sure where or why) and when I try to figure out a line I start to get uncomfortable which is perhaps telling in its own right. -Daniel
[2012-01-23 15:31:36] - "People can't make the choice for the highest good unless they can see longer term consequences of their actions." if your plans depend on this changing, i'm not sure things will work out. ~a
[2012-01-23 15:28:50] - a: Then we live in a flawed society where bad things happen to good people and children go to bed hungry, etc. Yes, much like what we have now. People can't make the choice for the highest good unless they can see longer term consequences of their actions. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 15:26:27] - paul/aaron: agreed. paul: curious though. when the mother's life is in question though, there should still be a line? ~a
[2012-01-23 15:24:32] - xpovos: and to be clear, i'm talking about stuff like adrian's earlier scenario; where a woman is choosing between having a baby in high school and struggling her entire life - or having a nuclear family at age 25 in a loving household when she's married and ready - aaron
[2012-01-23 15:24:01] - Aaron: I think the argument there is that abortion very rarely improves the life of the aborted.
-Paul[2012-01-23 15:22:40] - aaron: I think I'm the same way. More on topic: Somewhere between a 1 day old fetus and a 9 month old fetus, I start to think abortion is wrong, but I'm not sure where that line is drawn or what the logic behind it is. -Paul
[2012-01-23 15:22:19] - xpovos: i guess my problem with it is, it's too easy for me to imagine scenarios where abortion can improve a person's life. and if you're in a society where 1% of peoples lives can be improved with abortion, and the other 99% make it illegal because they weren't going to have abortions anwyays, then that seems selfish to me - aaron
[2012-01-23 15:22:09] - "i want people to choose the highest good 100% of the time because it's in their own best interest" what if people only choose the highest good 10% of the time. 'cause those are closer to the numbers we're looking at. ~a
[2012-01-23 15:15:50] - aaron: I'd phrase it that I want people to choose the highest good 100% of the time because it's in their own best interest. But I'll accept that. The difference is that I'm changing the nature of the debate from pro/anti abortion legislation to actually pro/anti abortion. Eve pro-choice people are typically anti-abortion. They just like 'safety nets'. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 15:11:57] - xpovos: ...why it seems different to me - aaron
[2012-01-23 15:11:50] - xpovos: i'm not sure if i can wrap my head around that right now. what i'm hearing is, "we want 100% of people to think abortion to be illegal, that way we're not trampling anybody's rights..." but, i don't think that's what you're saying. what you're saying probably isn't too different from what we have today, but i'm trying to figure out why ... - aaron
[2012-01-23 15:10:02] - a: No, I find government to be anathema. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 15:09:38] - Ah, you ask, then how can I demand that abortion be illegal? I repeat, my goal is to change the culture so that we don't have to make abortion illegal. Making abortion illegal is a recipe for major societal problems. Fix the problems, abortion fixes itself. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 15:08:51] - aaron: Hardly. I tolerate everything. Or at least I try to. Rational anarchy is: I obey my own laws. You guys develop whatever system of laws you decide is necessary to preserve your society. On a case-by-case basis, I'll obey them, or not, based on whether I feel they're moral and the level of inconvenience they cause me. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 15:07:24] - but, you think the government and law should prevent me from masturbating. ~a
[2012-01-23 15:07:05] - xpovos: rational anarchists can't tolerate people with differing moral values? how would they coexist in a society? compromise? there's a lot of things that i think are morally very wrong which i tolerate being legal, because i understand not everyone shares my moral values - aaron
[2012-01-23 15:06:26] - So, since you're asking me if I think masturbation is immoral: yes. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 15:05:51] - paul: i'd be OK with a law that said something like, "well, if you abort a 4 month old fetus, that's pretty wrong, but if you abort a 5 month old fetus, that's even wronger, and if you abort an 8 month old fetus, that's the same as murder", but it would be a real PITA to enforce that kind of complex law - aaron
[2012-01-23 15:05:37] - a: Let's be honest. I'm a rational anarchist, which means you can ask me almost anything and whether or not I think it should be illegal is just the same as asking me if I think it's immoral. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 15:05:02] - "somewhere between slicing a potato and strangling a puppy" haha, nice. ~a
[2012-01-23 15:04:05] - paul: honestly, i don't think it is clear-cut. my personal viewpoint on murder is that the wrongness correlates to the level of intelligence/cognition of the victim. somewhere between slicing a potato and strangling a puppy, i start feeling some level of remorse. that's not clear-cut either - aaron
[2012-01-23 14:59:31] - Aaron: Fair enough, although if we're going to say it's illegal to kill the latter but ok to terminate the former, I would hope it's as close to a clear-cut distinction as possible. -Paul
[2012-01-23 14:59:07] - that wasn't very clear. i'll take that as a "yes" though.
also, to be clear you think masturbation should be illegal? ~a[2012-01-23 14:57:28] - a: Griswold vs. Connecticut was the wrong answer. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 14:52:30] - paul: also, i don't think it needs to be "clear cut" for there to still be a necessary distinction. i can't think of a single legal distinction which is "clear cut", running a red light, dui, murder, manslaughter, whatever - aaron
[2012-01-23 14:52:08] - xpovos: so to be clear, you think all contraceptives should be illegal? ~a
[2012-01-23 14:49:04] - OK, I've got to crank out some data-cleanup projects. I'll be away for a bit. I'll read through anything posted later and try to make a comprehensive and sane argument at the end. I'd like to know what other factors people do consider in the person-hood argument. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 14:46:31] - 3yo was just an example. ~a
[2012-01-23 14:45:56] - a: is it still weird? i think i changed it back a few days ago.... i was demonstrating some XSS-injection vulnerabilities on some of our in-house software, some of which involved manipulating the user-agent string... but i thought i changed it back when i was done - aaron
[2012-01-23 14:45:55] - a: Is it really so clear-cut that the 1 day old baby is a person and the 9 month old fetus is not? -Paul
[2012-01-23 14:45:26] - a: Why does it have to be a 3 year old? How about comparing a 9 month old fetus to a 1 day old baby. Virtually the same "age" in terms of how long they have existed since conception, but one is outside the mother and the other isn't. -Paul
[2012-01-23 14:45:12] - a: From the first A/B/C those were abreviations for abortion, contraceptives (non-abortifaceant) and masturbation respectively, trying to follow your pattern. Sorry if I messed up or was unclear. The second was supposed to be close to a logical statement. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 14:41:10] - of course. ~a
[2012-01-23 14:38:45] - a: but you do understand why those that do equate the 2 feel as a strongly as they do about the subject of abortion? - mig
[2012-01-23 14:36:49] - i guess i see what you're getting at. but you're still equating a fetus with a 3yo, which i cannot do. most people cannot. ~a
[2012-01-23 14:34:28] - "A is preventable through law. B is preventable through law, but even more unpopular than A. C is simply not preventable by law." what's A, B, and C? ~a
[2012-01-23 14:32:45] - A: Abortion kills a person (you disagree, I know, but this is a presumption of my statement below) B: All people are equal. C: Murder kills a person. Ergo: Abortion and Murder are equal in results. One innocent person dead, one mentally scarred. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 14:31:06] - a: Yes and yes. But here's where we go from possible to plausible to impossible. A,B, and C are immoral and wrong. A is preventable through law. B is preventable through law, but even more unpopular than A. C is simply not preventable by law. Even if we get to a point where a majority of people decided they were strongly opposed. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 14:30:26] - "The consequences are equally ugly" what's so equal about it? ~a
[2012-01-23 14:29:36] - a: That was one of the major reasons abortion became legal. The demand existed and the supply did not, and so a dangerous black market emerged. Open it, regulated it, they said. My solution does not eliminate demand, but it does significantly lessen it. Just as there will always be murders, there will always be abortions. The consequences are equally ugly. -- X
[2012-01-23 14:28:36] - "i have posited that a fetus is a person" i'd like to posit that a sperm is a potential person. masturbation should also be made illegal? condoms, i understand you find them wrong, but illegal? ~a
[2012-01-23 14:24:39] - are you worried that you're pushing the wrong direction though? a lack of safe+legal abortions leads to other undesirable side-affects. ~a
[2012-01-23 14:24:15] - To that end... I have posited that a fetus is a person. I have provided evidence to support that position. Do you have evidence that would invalidate mine, or additional evidence from the opposite direction or for a different position? -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 14:21:21] - a: I have big lungs and can talk for great lengths. But, yeah... it's an uphill battle. But I have to start somewhere. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 14:19:06] - don't hold your breath.
~a[2012-01-23 14:17:10] - It's subject to interpreation which is of course subject to changes in social norms. Which, again gets right back to what I'm trying to do. I'm convinced that making abortion illegal tomorrow would be disastrous. Instead I have to work to change the social norms so that more people understand why abortion is wrong. Then we can outlaw it. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 14:16:20] - aaron: you have a weird user-agent. did you set that manually? ~a
[2012-01-23 14:14:09] - http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/03/middlefinger.pdf
[2012-01-23 14:05:07] - finger
[2012-01-23 14:03:21] - a: It is. At least when used in many circumstances. It's not enforced because most people don't feel strongly that it is wrong. So, I take your point, and perhaps we ought to emphasize that. If the majority of people in a democracy feel (strongly) that something is wrong... it's against the law. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 14:01:32] - wait what? if i think using the middle-finger is offensive and wrong, i should also think that it be punishable by law? ~a
[2012-01-23 13:59:57] - a: You're in the wrong form of government, then. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 13:59:36] - Shall I continue, or do you want to try to start the refutation now? -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 13:59:20] - Every living person has brainwaves. A fetus has detectable brainwaves at 6 weeks. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 13:58:34] - Every living person has a heartbeat, a fetus has a distinct and measurable heartbeat 18 days after conception. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 13:58:09] - Daniel: Not so difficult as to not be worth trying. I agree, defining a "person" is going to be the most difficult thing in this process. So, I'll start. Every human person has genetic chromosomes inherited from their parents. With rare exceptions for mutations, those are 32 chromosomes, present in children, adults, and fetuses. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 13:56:29] - "If something is deemed wrong by enough people in a democracy...it's against the law." strongly disagree. ~a
[2012-01-23 13:54:53] - and that might be difficult. -Daniel
[2012-01-23 13:54:45] - Xpovos: I think you can demonstrate it to be wrong given certain assumptions: chiefly that a fetus is the same as a person. You can challenge someone to define the difference but if that is an axiomatic thing for them then you "get no further" with them. My point is that in order to demonstrate things you need to have commonly accepted starting points...
[2012-01-23 13:42:54] - If people didn't do wrong things, we wouldn't needs laws against them, after all. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 13:42:20] - I'm coming from the belief that abortion is wrong, and that I can demonstrate it to be wrong, and therefore the social contract should assist in informing people that it's wrong by making it illegal. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 13:41:41] - a: That's what the social contract is all about though. If something is deemed wrong by enough people in a democracy, by a god in a theocracy, by one person in a dictatorship, it's against the law. We hope that those decisions are formed by right thinking, but that's not realistic, nor particularly human. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 13:35:22] - i think what is right/wrong isn't relevant though. if people shouldn't do something because it's wrong, we should make it illegal? that seems like a logical jump i'm having a hard time making. ~a
[2012-01-23 13:34:26] - agreed. ~a
[2012-01-23 13:33:06] - a: I'll amend. What a person thinks doesn't make it right. Frequently getting to the truth does cause significant communication issues. But at the end of the day I can only present a logical argument and hope that you present a logical rebuttal. Between us, we'll get closer to common ground, and hopefully the truth as well. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 13:30:51] - "we'll get no further" you'll get no further with a lot of people then. if what a person thinks doesn't matter, then you'll have trouble talking to people. ~a
[2012-01-23 13:25:30] - a: Fair enough. But again, a separate debate. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 13:24:19] - who said i wasn't pro-eugenics?
~a[2012-01-23 13:23:25] - a: Down that path lies eugenics. It's a reasonable thought on the surface, but it falls apart quickly. -- XPovos
[2012-01-23 13:22:58] - a: What a person thinks doesn't matter. What is true matters. Let us define a person. When we are finished, find the thing that every person has that a fetus does not, with this one additional restriction. You can't require him to have been born. If your definition of person is going to require birth, we'll get no further. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 13:22:36] - it's not as tangential as it seems though. we're talking about tons of unwanted children living in pain. ~a
[2012-01-23 13:21:34] - nina: Alright, then the supply mismatch is the other way around? Not enough black people want to adopt? I honestly don't care about how the mismatch occurred. It exists. And is only tangential to the adoption issue which is itself only tangential to the abortion issue. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 13:20:11] - xpovos: very few people think that a fetus is a person. additionally, even fewer people equate a fetus with a 3yo. ~a
[2012-01-23 13:18:04] - xpovos: white people want white babies. black people want black babies. my gay friends (asian/white couple) want either an asian or white kid. -nina
[2012-01-23 13:17:47] - I feel we've gotten a bit off-point. To resume the initial debate, the question is on the legality of abortion. We've described how laws limit choice and how we have laws against murder. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent person. Abortion is the termination of a fetus. If a fetus is a person, they are equivalent? -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 13:05:31] - Paul: It's more accurate to say there's a 'supply mismatch' for lack of less demeaning words. People want to adopt babies, not teenagers. People also want to adopt white children. Obviously that's inappropriate, but these are facts. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 13:05:19] - nope. ~a
[2012-01-23 13:04:17] - I could be wrong, but don't we have more demand than supply in terms of adopting? Isn't that why there are waiting lists for people who want to adopt and why some people look overseas? -Paul
[2012-01-23 13:02:48] - s/healthcare/childcare.
[2012-01-23 13:02:31] - But, certainly someone has to pay for that institutionalized healthcare... -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 13:01:53] - a: Agreed, except of course that you don't. We already have thousands of children in modern-day orphanages The childcare is institutionalized, and certainly not as good as parents, or adoption, or even foster care, but better than death. Somewhat facetiously... what's 1.4M more per year? -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 13:00:08] - xpovos: putting kids up for adoption is a zero-sum game. for every mother you refuse contraception then abortion (assuming the child lives), you must also find a family that will adopt. ~a
[2012-01-23 12:57:43] - mig: i think you know what i mean. ~a
[2012-01-23 12:56:21] - *** Xpovos *blinks* I don't think I can even parse that argument, a.
[2012-01-23 12:52:52] - how is that not selfish to say that parents should put their kids up for adoption, without having been someone who adopts? ~a
[2012-01-23 12:50:06] - a: No, but I have been involved with the process. It's a pain in the ass. -- Xpovos
[2012-01-23 12:48:10] - "But failing that, yes... adoption" have you ever adopted a child? ~a
[2012-01-23 12:44:39] - xpovos: i believe you have company in the fail-spelling club. - mig
[2012-01-23 12:43:24] - a: i think you are trying to say that "people fail to practice abstince a lot". Abistence if followed properly doesn't fail ... unless you believe in immaculate conceptions. - mig
[2012-01-23 12:43:09] - Crap, my spelling is faltering. I'm creating 'new' 'words' every post now. I apologize. -- Xpovos
prev <-> next