blike

Finally got it fixed!

fixed

Actually, now that I read it again, "Medical examiner J.B. Perdue was called to the accident scene Monday but did not examine Green then." It's hard to say from that sentence alone though.

No, it was EMT's who declared him dead on the scene. When I took my EMS course over the summer, they told us that if his body was intact, let a doctor declare him dead, even if he's blue, no pulse, and not breathing.

Aha, apologies. I misunderstood you completely.

Did you understand what I was saying syntax? The crankshaft still rotates in the given direction. It always goes in the same direction, even when the car is in reverse. It's simply a matter of inserting or removing gears as necessary to reverse the motion of the shaft that turns the wheels.

A certain group of people comes to mind. Edit: that sounded really bad, I meant anyone who does this sort of thing in real life probably wouldn't have any qualms about doing it with action figures.

Thought this was interesting.. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050201/D87VU1582.html http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+U.S.+military%3A+No+soldier+missing+in+Iraq+-+Feb+1%2C+2005&expire=03%2F3%2F2005&urlID=13075944&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2005%2FWORLD%2Fmeast%2F02%2F01%2Firaq.hostage.ap%2Findex.html&partnerID=2006

Electron configuration.

No one has answered his question. The crankshaft does not stop. Reversing does not stop the direction of the crankshaft motion, it just changes the gears around so that the direction of gear rotation is reversed. Here's an excellent animation to illustrate what I mean: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/transmission5.htm

We call that msiciripme.

It seems to me to be a sort of a primal characteristic to find pleasure in exerting dominance over something; be it animals or humans. As a side note, deer population in the states is out of control in some areas. This, of course, is due to humans eliminating or removing their natural predators in one way or another.

Welp, the polls have officially closed on the first election in Iraq in 50 years! "Iraq's electoral commission said turnout was estimated at 72% - significantly higher than expected." Good for them.

This thread is really, really tangled, so I'm just going to pick up where I left off. Those are both decisions that would be likely be made. I've heard people state things such as: "why don't we just nuke Israel and the palestinians", or alternately, "just let them kill each other off". I'm not saying these decisions are justified, I'm saying that as humans, it is our nature to place relative value. In any of the aforementioned outcomes (choosing sides, leaving them be, or destroying them both), a value judgement has been made. This is indeed a problem, but the only solution seems to be forceful supression of these tendencies. Even then it is only a philosophical or intellectual facade, one which I chose not to put on earlier. I don't believe one can will them to disappear completely. Thus, I believe, that even though you find the attitude I presented reprehensible, all humans harbor on some level the same innate inhibitions or tendencies (justified or not). That is why I said I do not value his life as much as my own life or another life.

That was UCF-Forensic's thread, if I recall correctly. Just giving where credit is due

What's your favorite classical music?

oh goodness. That made me cringe.

It stands for "ex-patriot", don't know what that means though.

Twas I who updated all the counters.

I don't feel that it is. It is part of human nature to assign value to the lives of others (similarly the willingness to let suffer), and we do it quite frequently in a variety of different ways. Nations as a whole do this, local governments do this, and individuals do this. One main idea that needs to be addressed before I go on is to clarify the value of life. Your argument requires (or assumes) that there is a certain value of life which is not subjective. You said in a post that, "Loyalty doesn't actually make a life more valuable though, does it?" which implies that there is a value of life beyond human subjectivity. That is, although an individual may chose to kill a criminal instead of his neighbor, the criminal still has a life value of x beyond subjectivity. I don't think this is a valid assumption. Loyalty does make a life more valuable in the eyes of the loyal. The value of human life is inherently subjective. There is are no natural laws which define the value of life; it is merely a sociological construct. I still firmly believe my original assumption: that all humans rate lives on a relative scale. This stems beyond self-preservation. The values may not come to light except in extreme circumstances, but they are an underlying factor in every day decision making. One good illustration is the feeling of remorse, which can be observed in societies and individuals. The loss of someone may be a cause for celebration for one group, and a cause for morning in another group. All this to say that when people make the decision regarding who to kill, they are making a value judgement on the life of each. I still need to respond to the rest of your post, but it's time for dinnuh.

I know I came off as a bit barbaric there, so I want to expand a little bit. In theory it is quite reprehensible, but I believe if we are honest with ourselves, most people will find that they do not hold criminals in the same regard as they hold their elderly neighbor who brings over pies. Some do not regard the criminals right to freedom as important as their own. For others, the criminals right to life is not as important as their own. Still others do not value the criminals right to vote, or right to persue happiness. If one does enough introspection they will find some aspect of a criminals life which they do not value as much as their own. From this, I do not think it is a giant leap to the notion that people value their own lives or the lives of other 'noncriminals' as much as their own. If someone was forced to chose between the life of their friendly neighbor and the life of Jeffrey Dahmer, I do not believe it would be a tough moral decision regarding who to chose. To actually conclude your decision may be tough for some, because it means the end of human life. However, I strongly believe it is human nature to place value on others based on their actions. For some, this may be a conscious decision. For others, it may be an unconscious decision or a decision which is kept personal. This decision is not made with the blind eye of justice, and I'm not purporting that it is. Indeed, which is why I chose the word "suffering". Do criminals not suffer in prison? They may suffer physically, spiritually (in the case of the religious), psychologically, or all of the above. The result is the same: people suffer as the result of punishment. I was using 'guilty' in a general context, but as to the situation at hand, I do believe he is guilty, he has confessed. Not necessarily, but it makes decisions easier (see Dahmer example above). He confessed. I still believe he is entitled to justice, which is why I don't think any 'extreme' torture methods should be used. I need to backpedal on my food deprivation statement, I think that is going too far. There may be another way, but the other way could be extremely unlikely. For example, a CIA agent could have infiltrated the Al-Quaeda organization and promoted rank until he was allowed to see high-level information. Possible, but unlikely. I do not think they would blow up their own citizens, which is where they cross the line from a resistance to terrorists. I can understand resistance, though I may not agree with it. There is no excuse for intentionally targetting innocent people or threatening to wash the streets with blood if citizens elect their own leader. Just to reiterate, I do not support extreme torture.

Good post, but would you really not contest it? On moral grounds or from a sociological point of view (i.e. those who take the law into their own hands must be punished). If a jury of your peers found that you had acted according to the law, would you allow yourself to go free?

One more thing to add: this is assuming it will save lives. This assumption can't always be made, etc.

Just to point out that I'm not condoning it by any means, I was just responding to the argument that it hasn't worked before.