georgerussia

I do. However I do not force anyone else to act, and I do not judge their acts according to MY conscience. After all, people are born and grown up in different cultures, and if you were born in some African tribe, your conscience would tell you that eating your enemies is absolutely right thing to do. Have you ever broken the speed limit? This is called education and experience. From your parents and society. Again, some time ago a lot of Christians didn't have any problem with having slaves, killing and torturing non-Christians to death, and lying to us. So you're saying that one hundred years ago your God communicated with you that it is acceptable to discriminate against some races, and now the God tells us different? Nope, the Moral law is result of society, it depends on society, and differs between societies. Even with basic things like "Thou shall not murder" - while almost every society protects its members, some societies do not expand this protection outside their members, and some societies even teach that it is not only acceptable, but also desirable to murder the people who have different beliefs, and that it is the only way to go to Heaven. Even if you look through our society, you'll see that there is no single Moral law, and almost every individuum's moral is different. Ask the people's opinion about aborts, gay marriage, contraception, premartial sex, masturbation, euthanasia - and you'll see it yourself. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

As my friend likes to say, when you talk to the God, it is called prayer. But when God starts talking to you, it is called catatonic type schizophrenia. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You seems to miss an important point - that law is not there just because it was written by someone in an old book. The law is there because the people like you asked (with their votes) for it. And nobody is telling you that law is perfect, because the person who wrote it heard so from the God. And you could change or repeal the law if the whole community agrees to it. That makes HUGE difference. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The story is true, and I've heard a lot of them. The difference, however, is that if his back got worse after the surgery because of the obvious medical mistake, he would not get a penny for that. So it's basically a choice to use a properly insured doctor, be able to sue him for malpractice, and pay a lot of money for that - or use a doctor who has no insurance, so you cannot sue him (well, you can - but you will get nothing for it), but which costs much less. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There is a huge difference between a translator and a court-certified translator. I'm sure you understand this difference. And, just for the record - who was this neighbor? An English professor? A TOEFL examiner? An English teacher, at least? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

But this is not the defense that delays the trial. The responsibility to provide the interpreter is on the Court, not on the defendent. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I just reread A. Hailey's "Overload" Sounds like the history is turning back. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is hardly enough to support this claim, as I have said before. This is not what I said. Even though the person doesn't have degree in law, the trial against the person is still fair if he/she has the ability to understand what the charges are, could challenge the evidence, explain their option, and so on. It is not necessary to have degree in law for that. However it is necessary to get certain level of understanding English spoken in the courts, which IS different from the English taught in ESL course. Yes, it happens in other countries too. However, as you definitely aware, you also have the right to refuse the lawyer, and defend yourself. Also I do not see how the lawyer could help here, if the accused want to testimony, for example. How? The prosecutor brings some evidence using the words which make the accused thinking they're talking about something else. His lawyer asks him whether it is true, and he says that yes, it is true. While in reality it is not. So how the lawyer could help here? I do not agree, but let's take this anyway. So you want the trial to be started, but then when the defendant is called to testify (and he has the RIGHT to do so), the court should pause, and start looking for a certified translator? So what would change in this case? I think you still did not understand my main point. The point is that even the person accused in raping a child has certain legal rights, which are guaranteed by law, including the Constitution. It is up to person to whether execute their right or not. And THAT'S what legal councel is for. But the councel will not help if you misunderstand the language (like thinking that assault and battery are the same words in the court, because the are marked synonims in the vocabulary). This is from 6th amentment. Obviously the rights "to be informed" and "to be confronted" require a person to understand the language; since the need of interpreter. The Constitution of California goes even further, and spells is exactly: I have said above that it doesn't matter how many people speak this language. The right is not waived just because the language is rare. The fact you'd bet on something doesn't really matter, and doesn't make an argument. No, I cannot confirm that, as it doesn't matter whether this point is valid or not. The point is that in US this right is guaranteed, even though it doesn't somewhere else. It might surprise you, but there is a lot of places in this world, where people do not speak or understand English at all. If you go, for example, to rural areas of China, you'll easily find that the languare you speak is vanishingly rare, and you could easily stick there for three years waiting for a court-certified English interpreter. And again, what you think absolutely doesn't matter here, as there is a law. Some do, some do not. Again, what's your point? Should we chop off the arms of shoplifters because they do it in Saudi Arabia? Yes, it does. Every country I know does that. The quality of those lawyers, however, is very low, but there are lawyers. If theya arrange and pay for interpreters, it doesn't matter how obscure is the language. I know no country which guarantees a court interpreter with condition "if the language is not obscure"; they rather do not guarantee interpreter at all. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

A lot of people drink alcohol, and live normal lives. Correct: alcohol ABUSE is responsible for all of that. Not everyone who drinks alcohol is a wife beater, like not everyone who believes in Jesus is an inquisitor. The answer probably is to drink responsibly. If someone eats a 6-pound chocolate cake for dinner, he most likely will feel like shit the next morning (and probably the next day). Is it true everywhere? AFAIK in California you have to be 18 to buy tobacco. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, I have read the article. And I've got the same opinion. Do you have any evidence to support this claim (that the guy doesn't even need one), or you're just speculating? I'm asking this because after living in US for last two years, I still wouldn't feel confident to get through the trial conducted in English - even though a lot of people said my English is pretty good. First, I don't really know the terminology (i.e. words) used in the court - this is definitely not something learned in the high school or ESL. Second, it is very easy to manipulate a non-native speaker using slang or jargon, and in the court it could have grave cosequences. I agree it could be hard to understand for a person who has never tried to learn foreign language. There is a HUGE difference between following the basic conversation (even with police detectives) in "what-is-your-name-my-name-is-Jim" pattern, and defending yourself in the court where you are expected to understand everything, and the cosequences for misunderstanding might be harsh. Because the Constitution guarantees fair trial to ANYONE. Even to the person whose language is spoken by oh, about 0.00002 of the earth's population. Regarding qualification, I'm sure you understand youself why the court translator has to be qualified for the job, and why the court cannot accept a person from the street claiming he or she speaks both languages. Because the trial has to be fair. This includes a lot of things, like the person's ability to understand the charges against him, challenge the evidence, cross-examine witnesses and so on. Obviously it requires good knowledge of the language. Have you ever been aboard in the country where English is not a native language (which is case with most countries around the world)? How would you feel being in Thai court with no English translator, while the whole trial is conducted in Thai? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It's the same in Moscow. And there are laws, and fines against this. It just doesn't work. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Because you can kill it for other purposes (like being paid for it), but then simulate it being killed for sexual purposes. There are several reasons for this, like leading the investigation away, or being able to use insane defense if you're caught. There is a good example of such a murder in Arthur Hailey's Detective. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Not necessary. Some criminals have faked it before - like saying they were insane at that moment. Mostly to avoid death penalty, or to reduce charges. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I would say it's completely opposite. Someone must be comparatively "bad" to get jail time for DUI. And someone must be comparatively "good" to get jail time (and not a chair) for sadistic sex murder. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It does not look like that. In Russia almost every dropzone except the biggest ones offers a solo static line jump with the round, with the appropriate progression. On most country dropzones this is actually the only option available. Because such a jump counts as a "real skydive", and is typically very cheap - usually five to twenty times cheaper than a tandem jump - it attracts a lot of people. So you would expect the student retention rate to be quite high - but it seems to be the same as tandem student retention rate. That's why I think it doesn't work. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's true, but for important things the media attention is almost guaranteed. From the article it seems to be in a hypotesis state yet - i.e. there is theory based on mices and in vitro, but not on humans. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, it means that there isn't one for this particular moment, and the human society was not able to find one during last 20 centuries. Which adds something to support the theory that there is no one. Not to mention I see no problems with current solution * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And maybe the reason for that is that there is no better solution? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

At the end it does came down to money as well. There would be definitely more dropped children, so it would cost money. But it does not matter anyway, as it is impossible to ban abortion on the whole Earth. And plane tickets are not so expensive. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I don't think so - remember that the child gets adopted, so they basically carrying the baby for someone else. However in this case it's a job, and a tough one - so it must be paid as well. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I would start with that. It's a good reality check - just to see how many people are going to support their opinion with something like $1000/month in taxes. Want to create a poll? :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Do you mean seeing a lot of Christian religious activity, like having the whole load praying Jesus on the way up, or studying the Bible after sunset load? Or you mean something else? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

In secular societies most - if not all - laws are not based on morality issues. There is a lot of things which are "morally wrong" but legal; there are a lot of things which are "morally neitral" but still illegal. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So you do not agree with current situation, but offer nothing else instead? This is not constructive. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is impossible to hide such information. Basically the drug does not exist until it successfully passes clinical tests, which involves A LOT of people. And some of them gonna talk about it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *