Andy9o8

I appreciate the honesty of using "swat" in the description instead of the normal ramp-up of "hit" "assault" "knife wound" "axe strike" verbage normally used to inhibit the discussion. (seriously) It makes for a cleaner and more reasonable debate and your point is clear and made in a way that you have to look at it for what it is (a good point) rather than jumping off on a tangent. Antiseptic terms are often self-enabling and are sometimes intellectually dishonest. Hitting is hitting. If it would be called "hitting" if done to an 85 year-old, then it's "hitting" when done to a 10 year old. Is there such a thing as "swatting" as distinguished from "hitting"? Sure. Recently, I (being in my 50s) was with my mom (in her 80s) and family around the dinner table and casually dropped an f-bomb in conversation. She reached over, swatted my wrist and said, "Hey! Wash your mouth out!" My kids, who eff-word 5 times per sentence, thought it was pretty funny. That's a swat. P.S., had I done that at age 13, she'd have slapped my face. That was hitting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/study-suicide-rate-for-middle-aged-americans-up-28-percent-over-decade-40-pct-for-whites/2013/05/02/cb339740-b341-11e2-9fb1-62de9581c946_story.html

What the hell is 'swirlied?' http://www.wordnik.com/words/swirlie

Well, I didn't want to go all Godwin on it, but, um...yeah. Sometimes it is appropriate. If we don't learn the lessons of history, shame on us.

I think you nailed it.

Nope. But the legislatures of many states have decided that assaultive (and some other) crimes against seniors are more wrong. Some states' statutes work the policy into the offense itself, while others work it into the sentencing phase; 2 different approaches, same goal. The reason, of course, is that seniors are more vulnerable and less able to defend themselves than the stronger, sharper people who abuse and/or exploit them. Almost..... child-like..... hmmm....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZpUT4C_gHY

Quite true. And what do we suppose the reason is for such laws? Anyone? Beuller?

Saudi Arabia doesn't have a "destination" DZ marketed to our little dysfunctional community. I've never been to the Dubai DZ, but I sure know what it looks like from the air.

Nope. But that wasn't your original question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Black_Canadian_actors

How about $D.CC and 9/10ths? Hmm...good point. I guess in that sense we don't have much of a choice in the matter. Maybe I'm daft, but I have no idea what the hell you two are talking about.

Just as a point of interest, there has been a bit of judicial caselaw on this issue recently: http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2012/10/citing-jersey-shore-court-throws-out-racial-discrimination-case-against-the-bachelor.html

Here's another Dubai horror story: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/28/world/meast/uae-uk-abuse-claims/index.html?hpt=imi_c2 Verdict near for imprisoned Britons allegedly tortured in UAE By Leone Lakhani and Mark Morgenstein updated 8:39 PM EDT, Sun April 28, 2013 (CNN) -- Three British citizens held on drug charges in the United Arab Emirates since July could face a verdict as early as Monday. Grant Cameron, Karl Williams, and Suneet Jeerh, all in their mid-20s, have pleaded not guilty to charges of consumption and possession of the synthetic cannabis product known as "spice." The consumption charge holds a minimum sentence of four years. Possession with intent to distribute could lead to 15 years in prison. And if they are charged with trafficking, they could face the death penalty, their lawyers say. But the case has earned notoriety for a different reason. The men allege that police beat them and subjected them to electric shocks after their July 10 arrest, according to Reprieve, a UK-based organization that provides legal support to prisoners. Williams and Cameron were visiting Dubai on vacation. Jeerh had moved to Dubai from Britain about six weeks earlier in hopes of getting a job in media, said Kate Higham, a lawyer for Reprieve.

this means war

It's just like a violent child abuser touche, sir. i would rather be called that than a flippin' lawyer. and yes, there is just a little contempt in this post, i view lawyers as the bane of society. so, thank you for the compliment. That's really tough shit. You see, you had a choice: discuss the topic like an adult, or be an immature little douche and try to troll someone. You chose not to discuss it like an adult. WoW, not even so much as a warning for that PA. You got wedgied a lot in middle school, I've no doubt. ETA: Probably swirlied, too.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/02/opinion/akter-bangladesh/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

It's just like a violent child abuser touche, sir. i would rather be called that than a flippin' lawyer. and yes, there is just a little contempt in this post, i view lawyers as the bane of society. so, thank you for the compliment. That's really tough shit. You see, you had a choice: discuss the topic like an adult, or be an immature little douche and try to troll someone. You chose not to discuss it like an adult.

Interesting article on point. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/05/02/russian-space-junk-almost-destroys-nasa-telescope/ Russian space junk almost destroys NASA telescope

Oh, come on.

He was "CuteKate" yesterday. Yeah.. I miss out on all the crazies these days. Actually, it's just one crazy.

It's just like a violent child abuser

My feeling about that is that corporal punishment in modern Western society has seen the last of its day. The argument that "it worked ok for me growing up" doesn't move me a bit. By way of comparison: Our generation of adults has declared domestic violence, especially by men against women, intolerable. There was a time when wife-beating was quietly tolerated and ignored. A time before that when it was approved of. A time before that when it was actively encouraged as a means to maintain domestic, and social, order. Today, of course, most of us consider that line of thinking appalling. Why does domestic violence by men against women occur? Well, the physical reason is utterly obvious: because adult men are usually a lot physically stronger than the women they assault. I am quite certain that had adult human females always been physically as strong and fast as adult males, domestic violence against women would not occur. From a purely physical standpoint, men beat women because they can. And that's the same reason why adults hit children: because, physically, they can. And that's simply because children are not physically strong enough to defend themselves against adults. That's also why there aren't many 18 year old boys who get battered by their Dads, because when they were 17 they finally hit the old man back, and he went down hard. Just as domestic violence by men against women has become universally intolerable, so, too, is it time for the hitting of children to be declared intolerable, too. In my book, it already is. Violence against children is not "up to the parents" any more than violence against a wife is up to the husband.

Hi.

Awww, the first Thanksgiving... Ironically enough, it tasted like chicken. Well, turkey.