Why pick on your neighbor?

Find the address of a Sprint exec, claim he knows where their phone is, and it might actually get fixed.

The other part to this is to understand the mentality of the cop.

Yes, he didn't catch her doing anything. His assumption, though, is that where there's smoke there's fire, that is, he assumes she probably does drive drunk habitually.

So say politicians write a shitty law and someone points out an absurd effect. Talking heads claim the cops and prosecutors won't enforce it that way, no reasonable person would read it to mean that.

Voters need to realize that LE have a very different perspective from most people. Two simple reasons: a. the desire to go into law enforcement requires a certain mentality, and b. they deal with criminals (often career criminals) on a daily basis.

Ars' commentary was pretty good, but it seems to have decline pretty steeply over the past year or so.

I thought most of the writers are still quite good, though.

You're using the literal meaning of literally, which is the one that literally no one uses.

They are free, that's free will, it's stil wrong to do it.

You're confusing a personal code with morality. Your personal code is your best guess about what is right and wrong, cobbled together from your personal experiences.

It's no different from your personal understanding of how physics work vs. actual physics. I don't grasp 1% of relativity, but I still know gravity pulls things down, and that on earth things will accelerate at roughy 9.8 m/s^2. Similarly, I'm not a doctor, but I realize that releasing a dense object over someone's head will result in an impact that may fracture their skull and severely injure them if not kill them. And I have never had a skull fracture, but I can infer that it would be painful or fatal.

Thus, even with limited information, I know it's wrong to drop a bowling ball on someone's head. Different people might come to the same conclusion in different ways, but the fact that they will all come to roughly the same conclusion demonstrates that the underlying truths were always there whether or not some arrogant humans stumbled across them.

Okay, then kill yourself. Not dead yet? That's because you have a life to live, which has an inherent value. It's self-evident, and you've been basing decisions on that inherent value the whole time, not killing yourself obviously, but also trying to better yourself, provide an example to others, etc.

"Morality is relative" is an absolute statement, which can't exist in a moral universe that contains no absolute statements about morality, ergo "morality is relative" is self-contradictory.

So we know that there exist some moral absolutes, then all the relative statements can be expressed as being relative to the absolutes, and thus you can derive absolutes from them. It requires intellectual effort, and that's your real problem with it.

No lives are expendable, ergo any particular life is not.

Reading comprehension time:

No, due to the innate nature of human life.

It's not a property or an asset that can be owned, that is correct.

What the hell is this? A death star for ants? How can we be expected to deploy storm troopers to destroy planets... if they can't even fit inside the building?

I don't want to hear your excuses! It will have to be... at least three times as big.

.. which the Democrats do because they can't win elections without paying lip service to Christianity. That's why, for example, Nancy Pelosi calls herself a "good Catholic girl" even though she supports legalizing late term abortion, and it's why liberals like Bill Maher know that Obama is probably a "secular humanist" despite his various protestations that he's Christian. (Of a church that he attended for 20 years without, apparently, hearing any sermons or discussing them, etc.)

There is, for liberals, no higher principle than holding elected office. And their constituents are quite happy to be lied to and go along with the charade.

That was from Star Trek, right?

In fairness, the GP was also ready to blame it on Jews.

The current serious proposal being debated in Washington is to mint a trillion dollar platinum coin. You'd need a whole Senate of Christine O'Donnel's to come up with something crazier and dumber than that.

"Cut spending." "You're fucking insane! We'll descend into anarchy! Racist!"

vs.

"Mint a trillion dollar platinum coin." "That may sound crazy, but let's seriously consider this proposal."

It's possible he was depressed enough that he didn't make a choice, in which case the discussion is moot, so I'll assume he was culpable or at least largely culpable.

You lack the vocabulary to even describe this.

It was immoral and wrong for him to commit suicide. It's immoral simply because human life is not an expendable asset that you can manufacture or dispose of at will, and that includes yours. There are quite a few nations on this planet right now where the authorities believe they can, and they are a nightmare to live in.

That doesn't mean we can make laws against it, after all, we can't exactly make you any deader than you already are. The best people can do is point out that it's wrong, explain why, but it's naturally up to that person to make the decision. That you have the capacity to do a great evil is what makes your free will a significant thing.