Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect

This thread makes me want to own an AK again.

I'm not sure where this should go, in the speedrun thread or here.

The left is doing everything in it's power to discredit Trump for any involvement in the peace talks between best and worst Korea. People have been given Nobel Peace prizes for far, faaar less than this. I don't think Trump cares one way or another if he gets a solid gold paperweight, but I do find it humorous.

WATCH OUT BOIS

No lie, I think my 6 position on my old rifle is a tapco. I feel like any money I put into that rifle is not worth it. Let's just see how long it takes for it to start breaking.

Alright everyone, time for a mullet car shoot-out. First off, https://cosprings.craigslist.org/cto/d/86-firebird/6568323027.html 5 speed Firebird VS https://cosprings.craigslist.org/cto/d/pontiac-fiero-se/6572710772.html I can see so much potential for a stupid car in each of them.

I have yet to beat midir. I haven't really tried it. All my characters that are at Midir are in like NG+3 or 4.

2019 Plymouth Superbird. I'm so happy with where musclecar design is going.

On par for the course of a tragedy. Over here, a hockey team bus crashed and the whole team died. Tons of money was raised for the families. People tend to come together in times of need. Some people take advantage of that for scams. That's a symptom.

Of course you could make that argument. That's an argument that gets touched on once every few years here in the States as well. And it's perfectly viable to do so. However, that's not the issue at hand. The ethical conundrum should be with the parents who are the legal guardians of the child. They can choose "Do we end his suffering? Do we try to save him still?" The issue at hand is the parents, who are legal guardians acting upon the behalf of the stakeholder, are fighting to attempt a different procedure under a different governance. And the current governance is rejecting their request, I surmise out of liability. If you expand this situation and give it the breadth of potential future precedent, I side with the parents 100%. There is nothing that would stop me from moving my loved one to somewhere else to seek a different procedure or attempt a different cure. ESPECIALLY when the stakeholder is so young (not like we're doing this for 88 year old grandpa) and the alternative is death. My argument is that the parents should have control over their child's life, as well as death and whatever ethical conundrum begets it, at this point. That choice should not depend upon the bureaucracies of a large hospital. If you are making an argument just for the sake of its edge, then by all means let the child die. But luckily, you are not the ultimate stakeholder.

There's so many federal laws on the books, the average person has most likely broken a handful just by living. On this board? We'd go for a high score.

In this instance, the state decided for the parents to forego treatment. I am saying that that is fine. It's when the state then denied parents access to their child for what in the states would be a second opinion that the line was crossed. The key here is that legal guardianship of a minor has passed from parents to the state. In contrast, you are asking if legal guardianship extends the opposing way. That would I be fine with a parent refusing care for a child out of their morals or principals. I am in favor of legal guardianship being delivered at benefit or potential benefit of the stakeholder. In this case, the ultimate stakeholder is the child who's life is at risk. While you may make a rightful judgment call that in this case specifically the child's life was a lost cause, I am more Keen to look ahead at the precedent set by following this removal of guardianship from the party that holds the stakeholders best interests as their direct argument. I'm sure you're ready to bring up a Watchtower/JW example here stateside, and their insistence against blood transfusions. While currently the numbers Indicate about 1.5 percent increase in surgical deaths in this group because of their beliefs, I still hold fast to my analysis of stakeholder claim. Always err to context and the party at the most risk to lose if guardianship is transferred to someone without stake in the matter.

I think you're purposely confusing two different scenarios. A government and a person are not equitable entities. And the context of this situation does not translate to a situation like you've described. Obviously, parents should not purposely harm their children without due reason. And there are laws against that sort of thing. I for one know of instances where children are taken from parents who refuse treatment for life threatening issues. Cosmetic, not so much.

That would kind of ruin the whole "secret" aspect of the job title.

Bingo. Again, I will reiterate, the child is a lost cause. But it is no one's call but the parents of said child to determine what treatment he receives. Because boy howdy, any other way sets a very dangerous precedent.

You're missing the point. I'm fine with the state cutting funding to a dieing kid. I'm not fine with the state not allowing the parents to move the child to another hospital of their request. The responsibility for the child's life should be with the parents, not the hospital.

Who do you think runs the place? Same system, different location.

Got some invasion footage to edit. But here's a fun clip of a fight in the arena. I think he was upset.

It's a nothing-burger because it happens so often that no one cares anymore, or it's nothing-burger because the hospital had their hands tied and didn't want the liability of moving a life-support child?

Meh. They're just trying to catch up to late 90s Juarez.

Care to elaborate?