Tuesday Highlights

Yo.

  1. Progress isn’t always.
  2. Fast has multiple meanings.
  3. A bishop does good.
  4. Heh.
  5. Logic and the not-pro-life crowd.
  6. Some Irish history.
  7. Sounds like …. (or of language and memory)
  8. Hermeneutical fail … in that I have no idea what is meant by that reply.
  9. A possible future.
  10. In trying to parody (highlight?) loony remarks of the other side, the poster comes of as a, well, bigger loon. Wonder if that was the plan.
  11. Healthcare and Oregon.
  12. Cleared for transfer“.

51 responses to “Tuesday Highlights

  1. Sounds like the state would charge you with “conspiracy to gamble” … that is charge you for planning a trip with intent to perform illegal activities.

    Indeed, but then they’d have to really prove you planned on gambling before leaving. It sounds like I need to try to research this question a bit. What makes it tricky is that you can commit a crime even if only an element of your crime happens inside the jurisdiction. For example, if I’m sitting in Africa and steal your credit card number, Illinois can charge me with a crime just as much as if I hopped on a plane and pickpocketed your credit card from you in the street. But what if you constructed a crime that happened purely outside your state’s borders? Let me get back to you…

    An infant cannot make his choices known either. You don’t have call infants slaves and have no issue with parents with children relocating.

    Well you’re saying that you’ll allow localities to permit abortion if they decide to do so. Will you also permit them to have infanticide? In that case you have to confront the problem with your argument that ‘voting with your feet’ helps you avoid tyrannical local gov’ts. Right now the law is pretty clear, women have sovereignity more or less over the unborn and the rights of the born are shared by both parents and gov’t. If you had an infant you’d be given a wide degree of freedom to make decisions on his behalf, but if you wanted to make decisions that had a high chance of causing harm the state would intervene. For example, if you thought it would be fun to have your infant shoot out of a giant circus cannon every day, child services might say no. But they might say OK if your kid was 13 yrs old and reasonable safety measures were being used.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>