davjohns

My ex an a rape response unit at one point. From out discussions, it was clear that the overwhelming majority of cases she went on were false accusations. The reported victim had a motivation for filing the report. However, my private conversations with women indicate that the vast majority have been raped and did not report it. My best guess for this phenomenon is that women who have been raped often feel guilt over it for reasons I can't fully grasp. Something horrible happened to them, and they decide they must have done 'something' to deserve it because it is just so horribly unjust otherwise. That, coupled with the pain and perceived stigma seems to suppress actual reporting. Then, those with a motive file false reports and completely muddle the waters. My personal experience with this is dated and I think the stigma has been greatly reduced. I really hope the statistics are changing. The military has a recent surge of reporting. I hope that is because the victims are seeking support and not because the actual crime is more common. I really don't know. I don't think anyone does. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Obviously, there are differences between races and genders. Obviously, each will have strengths as well as weaknesses when compared to each other. Obviously, those general differences will not hold in each individual case. The problem comes in applying the generalizations to specific cases. It is easy for a person to place everyone from certain division into a generalized category. It takes more effort to learn the strengths and weaknesses of the individual. And, people are often lazy. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

OK. So people in this thread are mentioning skydiving, SCUBA, motorcycles, and the like. Are those the 'high risk activities'? I was in a sportbike rider training yesterday. We did a self-evaluation of our skills, risky behaviors, etc. My self-evaluation showed that I consider myself average. Yes, I am jumping out of an aircraft in flight. However, I have two parachutes that are designed, built, and tested by experts. They have performed properly before. I am constantly training and evaluating to reduce the risks. I inspect my equipment before every jump. I have an AAD. I monitor the weather. I never exceed the capabilities of my skills or my equipment. Etc. Etc. Etc. I have similar mitigating factors for shooting sports, hang gliding, SCUBA, sport bike riding, etc. After all the mitigating actions I take, the activity is no longer 'high risk' at all. Let's face it. On an average weekend, thousands of skydives are made across the US. If someone is actually killed, it is quickly reported and analyzed for lessons learned. But ordinarily, nobody is killed. How high risk can it be when so many people do it without injury on a regular basis? It's only high risk if you do it wrong...just like most everything else. At least we recognize the inherent risk and take preventive action. Now...I get on a crappy Belgian road with horrible drivers who hate my American vehicle with the special "I'm an American tag" they make me display, while they are texting and running me off the road...THAT is 'high risk'. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Heartily agree. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Interesting. The article says citizens must pass a background check and take a 16 hour class to qualify. The governor described this as a serious threat to public safety. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Out of curiosity, if Tom was married to both Bob and to Alice, would Bob and Alice be assumed to be married to each other as well? Suppose Bob didn't care much for Alice, but decided to marry Bruce, who was already married to Susan. Now we have five people linked by various combinations of married/not married, or else we have five people all assumed to be married to one another even though each of them have not entered a direct marriage contract with most of the members of the group. I can't begin to imagine the fun the courts would have handling a divorce/division of assets, or an inheritance issue, under such circumstances. Don Standard marriage contract categories would be modified by anyone entering into a union. Things would work themselves out pretty quickly. Contracts were very common in history. Dividing kids is pretty well covered in existing law. Division of assets isn't too hard. The fun part is going to be watching insurance companies figure out how to define a family unit and how this will integrate with ACA. Pass the popcorn, please. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Personally, I would prefer that government get out of it completely. Inheritance can be determined by a will. Didn't have a will? I guess you wanted your stuff to go to the state. Visitation? You certainly don't need a marriage or civil union to decide custody and visitation. And why are homosexual rights superior to polygamist rights? I don't think they are. Shouldn't we do away with those anti-polygamy laws? Afterall, there is great historical precedent for polygamy. Who does it hurt? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I think it is possible that any criminal could be rehabilitated. I very much doubt we have the expertise to make it so. I am determined that certain crimes make it not worth the effort / risk. Therefore, certain crimes suggest we are better off locking them up until they can pose no further threat...or save money and dispose of them like cancer cells. A hard decision, but they cast their vote when they commit their crimes. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

***The fact is that people's past inevitably affects their decisions/actions/reactions. That's all I'm saying. On that basis, your future is inextricably connected to your past. *** Yes. The past and the future are both connected to the person...but not each other. Your past effects your future just as much as you allow it to. I think the classic advice (idealistic as it may be) is, "Love like you've never been hurt". If that is possible, then you must be able to keep your past from controlling your future. Obviously, some people find this more difficult than others. But then, many people think jumping out of a plane would be nearly impossible for them... One has to wonder if there is a correlation to be made. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Funny. Tried it again and got a slightly different result. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I can honestly say that I wish every woman I have ever known the very best. My ex-wife was a travesty. But she had issues. I hope she is deliriously happy with her new husband. I hope he can somehow fulfill whatever needs that were going unfulfilled, he understands her completely, they have great sex, they have all the money they need, and every other good thing either of them might want. I did the best I could in all of my relationships. I give them credit for doing what they could within their personal limitations. It didn't work out. I'm not spending one second on the past unless it is to remember things that make me smile or taught me a valuable lesson. Nataly - The unavoidable statistics for your future are very limited. 1) You will die. 2. You will get older. 3. Taxes. LOL But the future is not written. The future does not know your past, so how can it know what should happen statistically? If you flip a coin 100 time and it comes up heads every time; do you know what the statistical probability is that it will come up heads again? It's still 50%. The coin has no idea how many times it has come up heads. The future has no idea what has happened in your past. The two are connected only by you. And neither can see past you to view the other. My two cents. Your mileage may vary. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

All of the above seems to assume the firm only has the one client. If they are like most firms, they have lots of clients. Any of those clients might have run afoul of someone who would do this, have it done, or even do it themselves. Obviously, it is suspicious. Assuming it is related to one client is obviously illogical without more evidence. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I didn't read the whole story. Was the ref following the player before returning to his vehicle when the player confronted him? Where are the 911 tapes? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I don't want to hear it. I'm in Europe. These people aren't particularly fastidious about bathing. There are times I know a woman is on her cycle in the gym...not a stationary bike. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I think you almost answered your own question without realizing it. It isn't a black or white issue (like you seem to recognize). Rape (I don't differentiate for incest. It's still rape.) is a horribly traumatizing event. Prolonging it by forcing the victim to carry a reminder and go through the pain of childbirth with all the attendant mental anguish is just cruel. Given that the idea of 'when life begins' is a huge grey area, I can see how people would make allowances in cases of rape (provided the decision is made early on). Coupling our uncertainty as to when life begins with compassion for the victim makes us more willing to see her situation as one where abortion is the least offensive option. In my previous post, I mentioned the rights of the three people involved. Applying that to the case of rape: we are extremely sympathetic to the mothers needs, the father can go to hell, and the baby is hopefully still undeveloped enough that we can end it without adding more guilt to the situation. At least that's my view. If the pro-life person is adamant that abortion is always wrong...except for rape...then I can't reconcile the two. But in my personal philosophy, it makes sense. There is a difficult balance of rights and responsibilities that moves as biology pushes the timeline along. Early in a pregnancy, with a traumatized mother and evil father, the biggest concern in my mind is the mother. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

If all they have is a reasonable amount of evidence, he walks. They must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt without the defense presenting a case at all. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Will nobody think of the drum majors? Well played. Of course, once you brought up the double entendre, I couldn't stop reading "whistleblower' as 'skin flutist' in my head. Then, the color guard came up and it all went south. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm pretty sure I would disagree regardless of my ability to get pregnant. At some point (that's what this poll is trying to evaluate), there is not just a woman's body involved. At some point, there are two people there. One of them just doesn't get a say in the matter. Then, there's the whole issue of the father's rights. So, ideally, there are three people involved in the choice. And still, one of them does not get to vote. If the woman is a good person and the father is a dud, she gets the short end of the stick. Single parenting, stigma, endless legal battles to try to get support, etc. If the man is a good person and the mother is a dud, she can abort his child without even discussing it. She can have the child and milk him for money for eighteen years while keeping him from having a solid relationship with the child. Endless legal battles, etc. If both are duds, the child gets worked over by social services or well intentioned family members, neglected, etc. To say that it is the woman's right to choose and everyone else should stay out of it is really trivializing a very difficult problem. Pretending that abortion is always wrong is the same. This just isn't a black and white issue. That's why it causes so much problem. Consider this: the recent slavery (kidnapping doesn't seem harsh enough) case in Cleveland was sensational. Part of it involved the forced abortion of a pregnancy of one of the victims. Last I heard, the DA wants to charge that as murder. I have no problem with that. But we have to be careful. Is it murder when it is done against the mother's will and abortion when done according to her will? So, whether the child is human or not might depend on the mental / emotional state of the mother? I can't buy that. I can't tell you exactly when it becomes a person, so I prefer to err on the side of safety and call it early in the pregnancy. But I think it is clear that it is a person before it leaves the womb. That means it is entitled to some protection and not just subject to the mother's desires. Obviously, there are lots of things that go into the decision and the mother who has to bear the burden has the largest vote. But at some point, she has made her decision and the child's rights come into play. And then there is the whole question of the father's rights that always seems to be ignored. I'll probably get flamed just for mentioning that, but it's still true. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I don't see the issue. Campbell's soup cans were once made iconic art by Andy Warhol. Obviously, an advertising icon can be art. This particular icon is used for lots of other things. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

What high-risk adventures? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm going to take a tiny bit of exception to the use of the term 'whistleblower'. If you reveal something years later for profit, are you really a whistleblower? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

But its Obama . .. he has the almighty on his side. Chuck Norris? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Not a bad point. But if I recall correctly, didn't he lose the kid and return to his vehicle? I think the kid turned around and followed him to his vehicle to start the physical confrontation. So, using the same reasoning, doesn't that make the kid the agressor and reverse your argument? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I picked up on that as well. The article says congress is out of session and the 'Administration' has delayed implementation of the provision of the law. Not sure how that works unless congress placed all power into the hands of an agency under the President. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

So, the tunnel is a giant hair dryer? Is there a way to ban Bieber from the radio? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.