(04-02-2019, 04:27 AM)irukandji Wrote:Okay, I don't know who we are comparing her to , but she was willing to do whatever it took to prevent BC /Conrad's cursed ring from hurting her children. When they were no longer in danger, she left to live with Nick. Since she apparently had been rehired at the law firm, and could have lived anywhere with or without anyone, but choose to live with someone who loved her and her kids, I would say Yes, she is a good example of motherhood.(03-31-2019, 12:23 PM)eric Wrote: The discussion about sexual activity has changed. Many first born babies in the past were 2-3 months premature and weighted 6.5 to 7.0 lbs No one really cared as long as there was a marriage. For those mothers who did not marry, there were places they could go and leave the children to be adopted. As a child way way way back wen I heard more than once that little Mary was taking a trip for 3-4 months. The most recent real life Royal had a bump almost as soon as she got married. You may or may not approve of the current situation, but that's just how it is.
Well, let's take the character of the hour here, Adalind, and baby Kelly. Is Adalind really a much better example of motherhood?
(04-02-2019, 02:10 AM)dicappatore Wrote:I don't know where you live, but where I live, there is a high ownership of hunting weapons, personal protection weapons, and a boat load of weapons to defend from the zombie attack. There is so much gun inflected death here, it hardly even makes local news after day one.(04-01-2019, 05:41 PM)syscrash Wrote:Quote:First thing morality and legality are two different things.Ok maybe I am missing the point you are making. In the last few post I have been trying to point out that by following the law does not make you a moral person. Also someone who breaks the law does not make you immoral. This distinction is important because many use the illegality of a characters actions to defend their statement of the character being immoral.
That was the whole purpose of my post. Welcome to the world of you arguing with your self.
But just like I was explaining there is no correlation between legality and morality. There is statistical proof that owning a gun does not decrease the chance of being a victim. Yet statistic prove owning a gun increases the chance of injury and death. What people forget, it is one thing to imagine if being attacked you could shoot someone. Unless you are trained shooting someone even if you are in immanent danger is not as easy as you think. Even if you tried to shoot the attacker it would be out of fear, which would inhibit you from hitting the target. Lets say you did get a lucky shot and kill the attacker. Even if you justify it by you knew you where going to die. You still have to deal with the fact that you shoot someone. Even people that have trained to handle being under fire. They may be more likely to protect themselves, but they still have the psychological issue. Why do you think every police shooting requires the officer to attend therapy sessions.
But your post like many others who argue self protection. Have never shot someone. So most arguing the castle doctrine or stand your ground are spotting rhetoric. The point is my post was explaining people continually try and draw a correlation between legality and morality when none exist. Just like you where trying to draw a correlation between gun ownership and self protection.
According to my cousin, whom is a retired NYC PD Detective, they had a saying. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. As for your argument about able to shoot someone? It is not a normal reaction for us normal people to shoot someone.
I don't know if you ever heard of a "Gun Range"? That is were you go and practice so when you need to, you react instead of thinking about doing an abnormal thing such as killing someone.
As for the aftermath? Better result for me going for therapy as opposed to my family planning my funeral.
As for this comment?
Quote:But just like you said and I quote "Even with laws that allow us to own Class 3, full automatics machine guns... yet for some reason, crime is so low, we don't need the police" even though statistic do not support this statement. That make your statement a belief and not a fact.You are so flocking wrong since this is not my belief but a FACT, and our statistics prove it, where I live, every day.