Illinois Hokie's Recent Comments
I dunno. Comic Shane was HUGE.
But dead on re: the size mismatch between Rick and Pete. I have to go back and rewatch, but I think Rick was probably giving up four to five inches and probably forty pounds in that fight. It was really striking how much taller than Carol Pete was when she brought him the casserole. (lol) He was towering over her, and I've never noticed a huge height difference between Rick and Carol.
The bite seems to kill regardless of blood loss. Ed in season one did not lose significant blood loss but developed a fever and died. Same with Bob this season. I think it's safe to say that the bite causes some sort of fatal disease, but it doesn't actually turn you into a zombie. Everyone already does that.
As for the guts/splatter not causing fever, the only consistent explanation would be whatever causes the fever is localized to the mouth and has to puncture the skin.
Sorry, sir, meant absolutely no disrespect to you. If there are jerks out there who take some sort of twisted pleasure in a Hokie suffering misfortune on that particular date, I will be content to live my whole life pretending they don't exist.
I would support Whit Babcock in such a situation, and I support Pat Haden in this specific situation.
And with that, I bow out of this thread, ladies and gentlemen.
Brewer has seen that defense before, Motley hasn't.
The reciprocal is also true.
Groupthink has always been a problem in human culture, the internet has just facilitated it. Which is really sad, because we know have the ability to educate ourselves on every conceivable subject using the same tool people are using to form mutual admiration societies.
Leg for the research. It must have been unofficial. I think he visited Clemson then scheduled his press conference, and everyone was having kittens until "sources" posted on here that he was a VT lean.
That was perhaps my favorite TKP day ever.
This.
The world doesn't shut down every September 11 or December 7, but that doesn't lessen the magnitude of those dates.
No question. The example above is only for instances of consensual sex. My point is, if one partner is intoxicated to impairment but not the other, the intoxicated person cannot legally render consent.
A drunk person can certainly rape another drunk person, or a sober person. That's not the issue I was talking about.
Many thanks for following up.
And again, fuck the Nazis.
Here's how I see it. The cases you laid out above are issues of negligence, and are litigated as such. But consenting to sex isn't an issue of negligence, because you aren't harming another person. (No matter how many times you've seen 50 Shades.) What you're describing above would be if someone got drunk and forced themselves on another person.
Sexual consent is a contract, legally speaking. And like all contacts, you have to be in your right mind to enter into it. If you are blackout drunk and sign a contract to buy a car, you aren't legally bound to that contract. (Yes, you still have to return it, and you're liable for any damage you did to it since it was never your property.)
That's like sex. If a girl is falling down drunk, she lacks the facilities to enter into the contract of consenting to sex. Now here's the important part: the other party has to know that you aren't in your right mind, generally speaking. So if you have had two beers and a girl who can't keep her head up slurs out something vaguely resembling "Let's fuck," you can't do it. You know she's out of her right mind. That's rape.
But let's say you've had twelve beers, three shots and a red bull and vodka. You are equally impaired. You cannot reasonably be expected to know that girl is out of her head, because you're equally out of yours. Not rape.
Here's the rule to use: if any part of it feels like it's taking advantage of her, don't do it.
Really? The WWII medic talked at length about trying to identify a plane full of headless soldiers that arrived at his base that were victims of a Bouncing Betty. He made it seem like they were designed to detonate about five feet off the ground. Maybe some bounced higher depending on make?
Huh. I thought Clemson was his only other official. Was that just the only official he took after he verbaled to us?
Funny thing is, I could have sworn there was a similar statute on the books in Virginia when all this came out. I can actually remember discussing such a law in high school. But apparently I've been mistaken for quite a while.
I listened to an interview with a WWII vet that talked about how the Germans used a landmine colloquially called a Bouncing Betty. When triggered, it launched the mine into the air so that it exploded at shoulder height, taking out the heads. Two thoughts:
1) Fuck the Nazis
2) Perfect for the ZA
How does Dave Hart still have a job?
Sorry you feel unsettled by what I said. I'd recommend focusing on what I said, and asking for clarification if it's unclear, rather than playing the Akin card. Seems rather uncalled for, but YMMV.
I honestly, sincerely wasn't trying to play any card here. I was saying how it came across, to give you an opportunity to clarify, which you did. I was basically asking for clarification in as many words by saying how the original wording had come across.
Absolutely, let's shake hands and just accept we see it differently.
Oh. Stupid autocorrect. I was intrigued to see what other potential you saw in Nijman.
Is there an or to that either?
For the sake of brevity, I'll just say that I disagree with pretty much every one of your assertions. It's not worth a wall of text or an autopsy response, but a couple points I think are important to overtly state.
The structure of our judicial system does have a big problem dealing with sexual assault. It is a PROBLEM. Not a feature. In a particular crime where there are rarely witnesses, victims often exhibit PTSD symptoms and the majority of cases come down to the testimony of the plaintiff vs the defendant, our justice system is about as poorly equipped as possible to act as finder of fact. And there's no way around it that I can see, because we CANNOT reverse the assumption of innocence.
As for "expanding the definition of rape," the only definition of rape that's worth a damn is a sexual act in which one party does not render consent. I'm going to give you broad benefit of the doubt here, but your comments on this subject sound unsettling close to a discussion of "legitimate rape."
First things first, Morgan just became my favorite character last night.
But the only reason he can maintain an "all life is precious" mentality is because he has been alone since the ZA began, except for the brief time his wife and later his son were alive. He's never been a part of a larger group (that we know of), and that mentality doesn't work of you're trying to do more than keep yourself alive and be kind to all you pass by without ever establishing deeper ties.
Morgan isn't wrong, but neither is Rick. They have just followed very different paths to arrive at the same place.
Classic projection, and one of the few times it has been really well done on television. Between Gabriel's survivors guilt and Sasha's PTSD , they are really establishing three-dimensional, grounded characters.
Still suspended from the team until the legal side plays out?
The sad thing is, we will never know for certain what happened in Charlottesville. A certain percentage of the population will assume that since the account given in the Rolling Stone article wasn't accurate, it was a deliberately falsehood. But research on sexual assault shows first person accounts of victims of sexual assault often vary wildly from the actual events, influenced by how the mind copes with violence and trauma. It could be fabricated, or it could be PTSD.
That's our justice system's particular problem in dealing with sexual assault. The onus is on the accuser, and the majority of the time there are no witnesses and just one person's word against another's. We can't suspend the assumption of innocence, but sexual assault victims are left with little recourse. It's a problem that does not have a readily apparent solution.
Went back and watched Clear, and it actually changed my perspective on Morgan a little. I was really assuming a big shift in his perspective, but I found this exchange particularly telling:
Seems like Morgan followed his own advice. I don't think his perspective has changed significantly since Clear, I just think he's worked through some of his survivor's guilt and found peace after watching his boy being taken.