TheMightyEthan

I also use the bunny ear method of shoe tying.

Our high school had a cop, he was the "School Resource Officer" or something like that. Don't remember him ever actually doing anything though... A cup is always 8 fluid oz, whether it's butter or milk. Not sure how many weight ounces of butter are in a cup of butter, because butter's always measured by volume...

Must... resist... looking...

They might not. The list isn't all-inclusive so just because a certain game isn't on it doesn't mean the dev is getting money.

I alphabetize mine, so it really bugs the crap out of me that it's not Batman: The Dark Knight, because then I'm torn between putting it where it should go in alphabetical order and putting it with its series. Ultimately I end up treating it like there's an implied "Batman 2" in there, but I don't like it!

But it's not like Planned Parenthood ever hid that they intended to provide abortions. A more accurate analogy would be me being poor and having $20 and saying I'm going to go buy $10 of groceries and $10 of video games, then you give me $20 on the condition I use it to buy groceries, so then I actually spend $30 on groceries and $10 on video games (or perhaps $20 on groceries and $20 on video games, I can't claim to know that PP isn't shifting money around, but people also need to remember that "being investigated for" does not mean "is guilty of").

I really wish OnLive was playable around here. Though I have become convinced it's a regional thing. Though since the only problem is input lag I would totally buy a good turn-based game on it. CivRev? I'd be all over that shit.

Yeah, the only time a grapple insta-killed me was when the kick at the end of it knocked me off the edge. Without other people shooting you it takes 3-4 grapples to die.

I bought Enslaved for $20. Thought it was worth that. Wouldn't call it awesome, but I enjoyed it.

Insta-kills?

Luckily I live in an area with natural defenses against such things: near-constant 20 mph winds, with lots of gusting.

@Dean: Oh okay. That ties up the biggest plot hole in that game... *Edit* - damnit, Jack got in there with "facts" before I could post

What did the suppression field actually do? How did it prevent people from having sex? Or did it just prevent reproduction?

Alternate plan: invent artificial wombs within which to transplant and gestate unwanted babies, then distribute them to couples wanting to adopt.

My plan: create a retrovirus that alters everyone's genetic code so they are incapable of conceiving a child without taking special supplements. Provide those supplements for free to anyone who wants them, no questions asked.

Again, I'm pro-life, but to be fair there are other (and far more practical) ways of controlling the population than abortion. Simply making contraceptives freely available is hugely effective (also dramatically reduces abortions, incidentally).

Hear hear! I've been trying to restore the karmic balance, up and down-voting posts I otherwise would have left untouched just to try and cancel out what I believe to be unwarranted votes. *Edit* - Why can't everyone acknowledge that it boils down to what aspect of a person or life you value, which is an inherently philosophical question and therefore has neither a correct nor incorrect answer?

Maybe something worth getting on top of then? Something has to give somewhere down the line. Why is it that people would seemingly much rather fund a child to be raised in the foster care system than some pills and tubes of rubber? Oh I totally agree we need to give more funding to measures that prevent pregnancy and are more realistic than just saying "don't have sex." Teenagers have been having sex since the beginning of time, you're not going to stop that with some PSAs and one required class in high school. Hell, you wouldn't stop it if all of school was devoted to getting them to not have sex, short of keeping them physically separated and supervised at all times, 24/7. And that's not even addressing adults... Also, since my stance may have gotten muddled: I'm pro-choice (at least early-term), I just acknowledge that that's a value judgment and like any value judgment is not objectively verifiable as being correct or incorrect.

Follow-up: If there were a way to transplant a fetus from one woman to another without killing it/harming it significantly I'm sure most pro-life people would be absolutely fine with that. Though you'd still have to be able to find someone to take it.

And my suggestion to that is they can adopt the fetus if they want it. If they think it's alive they can have it. Bring a cot along to an abortion clinic and take that mass of tissue child home. They're free to have that belief that it's alive and I won't get in the way of that, I'll even facilitate them adopting a fetus. Problem is science rather strongly disagrees with them on the whole "is it alive" thing. Believe what you want, doesn't make it true. I'm still however unsure on the purpose of mentioning a sterile person. That depends on how you define "alive". If "alive" means "able to live independently" then it's not alive, but "science" doesn't decide what the definition is. Saying "they can adopt it after it's already been killed" doesn't really solve the problem. The sterile person thing was just the first thing I thought of to have the hypothetical society be okay with killing that you would not be okay with killing. It could just as easily have been people over 40 or everyone with blue eyes, the specific thing wasn't important. In most states, nothing. (If you're low income enough to be on Medicaid that might cover the pill, I don't know. And some places give out free condoms, but those tend to be private organizations.)

Well, and really you might as well not need one. As long as you're at least 18 you just say to your doctor "I want to be on the pill" and the doctor's like "okay" (unless there's actually some medical reason why you shouldn't be, but I don't know what that reason might be). *Edit* - under 18 it's basically the same except some (most?) states require parental consent, just like any other medical treatment.

It's available if you can afford it. (Yes, most people can afford condoms.) *Edit* - @6264: you always need a prescription for "the pill". Not sure about Plan B.

Was that directed at me? The person with the pretty consistent track record of stating "let folks do to themselves what they want, but don't do unto others what they don't want. i.e smoking, murder, killing people cos they're sterile". Or are you suggesting that because someone is sterile and therefore unable to reproduce that it'd make them my earlier mentioned "six foot tall organ storage unit" because of course reproducing is the only reason people live. (Is it worth mentioning that the inability to have kids is part of the opposition of gay marriage, yet no one minds sterile people being married.) I'm not saying "If science proves something then kill em". I'm suggesting that you would still think killing someone cause they're sterile is wrong, and would say that this is something your society should not allow, because you place value on the fact that it's a conscious being regardless of sterility, and so you should not kill that being without its consent. Similarly, pro-life people place value that something is human (defined by whatever criteria they define it by, I'm currently going with "completed genome"), and say that you should therefore not kill it. They disagree with your assertion that it's only the mother's body in question, it's also the child's. And while you make a different value judgment than them about what should be protected neither value judgment can be said to be objectively right or wrong. The point I was making is that sure science can tell us when something happens, but it's philosophy that tells us why we should care about that thing. Your philosophy is that consciousness is what's important (or actually that's mine, but you seemed to agree with me...), theirs is that the fact that it's a separate genetic human entity is what's important, but it's all just philosophy, it's not objectively verifiable.

If you lived in a society that considered it okay to kill anyone who was sterile (but was otherwise identical to your current society) would you just sit down and shut up about it and allow other people to make their choice or would you argue that it's wrong? Science can tell us whether someone is sterile or not, so you arguing with that would just be you trying to impose your views on everyone else.