The relationship of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep can therefore be shown to be of a non-sexual nature. The tomb is richly decorated, and the two men hold high titles while showing their great affection for each other freely.
Furthermore, the two menbs wives and children are depicted in the tomb.[vi]
While it is possible the two men were in a homosexual relationship, balancing their infertile relationship with two fertile relationships, it is unlikely the two men would have been in such a favorable position with the pharaoh.
http://mummyswrap.com/2009/05/20/the-controversy-of-niankhkhnum-and-khnumhotep -part-2/
http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_15673894
*roflamo*
stuff like that makes republicans look like a bunch of moroons around to entertain the rest of the world with their st00pid campaigns.
Mon Aug 09 2010 02:53:14 EDT from Nite*Star @ Uncensoredfleeb, did you read part 2?
The relationship of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep can therefore be shown to be of a non-sexual nature. The tomb is richly decorated, and the two men hold high titles while showing their great affection for each other freely.
Furthermore, the two menbs wives and children are depicted in the tomb.[vi]
While it is possible the two men were in a homosexual relationship, balancing their infertile relationship with two fertile relationships, it is unlikely the two men would have been in such a favorable position with the pharaoh.
http://mummyswrap.com/2009/05/20/the-controversy-of-niankhkhnum-and-khnumhotep -part-2/
Nope, I missed that. Ah well... it was certainly notable.
Thu Aug 05 2010 04:34:23 PM EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored
Yes, that pretty much sums up the majority of experts on the subject of torture. Torture simply doesn't work well.
In my opinion torture is most often advocated by sadists.
Thu Aug 05 2010 04:46:37 PM EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored
From an expert:
"I used to teach SEER (Survival, Escape, Evasion, Resistance) in the US Army a long time ago and although we didn't use anything remotely close to the kinds of things that go on today, we were fairly harsh when it came to sleep deprivation, stress positions etc.
You know what I learned?
People will tell you anything. They will say the most outrageous and ridiculous falsehoods, they will agree to and repeat anything you ask them too just to get you to stop doing whatever you happen to be doing and they know that you aren't really going to hurt them because you're both on the same team.
Now you can make the argument that they could also be made to tell you the truth, but now you have a problem, how do you know the difference? You don't, you can't.
That's only one angle.
The other and the one that is the barometer for me is what's right and what's wrong. I have a moral keel and for me- obviously yours is different- but for me, torture is a stark contradiction to my value system, like abusing my kids, cheating on my wife, stealing from my employer, betraying my country, those sorts of things aren't something I can rationalize. Sorry. Socio-pathology has gone from being an affliction of disturbed individuals to being a State policy. I know what lies down that road and although I'm fairly certain I can't stop it, I sure as hell won't condone it, not for any reason, not ever."
Thu Aug 05 2010 06:05:39 PM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored Subject: Re:Is that your idea of critical thinking skills? It's the second and
third time you've floated straw men for me to defend.
You're accusing me of flawed debating tactics in order to drive attention away from the fact that your own debating tactics are flawed. You've been doing that for years. We can see through it; it isn't going to work again.
Huh? Years? "Debating tactics"?
I called you out on your claim that this was the "Obama Recession." How do you get from there to here?
Or is this another straw man?
I wasn't thinking about anything specific when I was talking about the Constitution, other than it is too vague.
Because it is, it has become virtually meaningless. It's subject to interpretation, and those interpretations have changed over time as well.
Even things that are pretty well spelled out, like the Second Amendment, have
vastly different intpretations. And our judicial system allows judges to become
petty tyrannts, who can rule against the people at their whim, with little or no
rammification.
Thu Aug 05 2010 07:08:51 PM EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ UncensoredAug 5 2010 4:34pm from fleeb @uncnsrd
Wonder if this helps:
http://www.livescience.com/history/071019-torture-history.html
I really don't see that as being any more scientific than this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR200904200281 8.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/dzzvrz
"The writer, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, served in senior positions in the Pentagon and the White House from 2001 to 2009, most recently as chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush."
That's your expert?
Thu Aug 05 2010 11:06:02 PM EDT from fleeb @ UncensoredThe gay marriage thing seems straightforward, yet it's kind of complicated.
So many ways this could go.
If the religious nutbars aren't careful, marriage could be denied to all people in this country quite easily based on their current arguments. Because they keep talking about preserving its sanctity or some other such nonsense, which really comes down to "because our religion says it's only a man and a woman who can get married." And if it can be proven that marriage is a religious thing, that whole separation of church and state bit will swoop in and kill it for everyone.
That'd be kind of interesting. It might even be liberating for the poor guys who want out of their marriage, heh.
If marriage is simply a legal contract (in the eyes of the state), then there's really no reason why two (or, frankly, more) people couldn't get married, regardless of gender. It's a fucking *legal* *contract* in the eyes of the state. If you want to get religious about it... well, don't let people have a religious ceremony in your particular church. But to impose your religious point of view on the rest of the citizens in this country flies in the face of the constitution, which essentially states that no particular religion will guide the state's laws.
This said, I'm not sure it's a good idea to allow more than about five people to enter into this kind of contract together. Five people can help maintain a household which, I think, is one of the reasons for entering into this kind of legal contract. Much more than that, and it becomes ridiculously confusing. I think the state could make a case for limiting the number of people that enter into this kind of contract. Although five seems possibly reasonable to me, the state might elect to keep it to 2... but if it did so, would it be due to keeping it simple enough for the state to manage, or due to a religious bias?
Fundamentally gay marriage has always been an equal rights issue. As you correctly point out, if the religious element go too far hetrosexual marriage could be abolished just as easily as allowing any consenting adult to marry. Both are valid solutions to an equality.
Fri Aug 06 2010 09:50:27 AM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ UncensoredIf the religious nutbars aren't careful, marriage could be denied to
all people in this country quite easily based on their current
arguments. Because they keep talking about preserving its sanctity
or some other such nonsense, which really comes down to "because our
religion says it's only a man and a woman who can get married." And
if it can be proven that marriage is a religious thing, that whole
separation of church and state bit will swoop in and kill it for
everyone.
And that's EXACTLY what needs to happen!
The government should get out of the marriage business COMPLETELY!
Does your religion disallow marrying a certain type of person? Fine, don't marry that person, or find a different religion, depending on which is more important to you. The government needs to get the hell *out* of that decision.
Strong agreement.
I guess you don't think unmarried couples (living together),
male/female (that is, heterosexual couples) should raise children
either?
I think that's probably an accurate feeling from Ragnar, but it's for him to say, not me.
Aug 9 2010 12:51pm from wizard of aahz @uncnsrdI guess you don't think unmarried couples (living together),
male/female (that is, heterosexual couples) should raise children
either?
I think that's probably an accurate feeling from Ragnar, but it's for
him to say, not me.
In most cases, it's still sub-optimal.
Marriage does change things in a relationship. Look how many people lived together successfully for years who divorce after getting married. Why?
Aug 9 2010 12:17pm from Ragnar Danneskjold @uncnsrdConstitution, other than it is too vague.
fleeb:
I wasn't thinking about anything specific when I was talking about the
Constitutions are supposed to be vague. It is the purpose and directive of courts of appeals to determine what the language in a constitution means, and to create (yes, create) law by issuing decisions and rulings along those lines.
Seriously, everyone in this country is so f'n ignorant as to how best to draft legislation that it's a farce these days.
Aug 9 2010 12:51pm from wizard of aahz @uncnsrdI guess you don't think unmarried couples (living together),
male/female (that is, heterosexual couples) should raise children
either?
I think that's probably an accurate feeling from Ragnar, but it's for
him to say, not me.
Aw aahz baby, too scared of having folks invoke Rules #4-6? I've been not around for a bit so maybe no one's been invoking lately ... ?
Marriage does change things in a relationship. Look how many people
lived together successfully for years who divorce after getting
married. Why?
because of the contractual obligations, responsibilities, and benefits that are part of the contract of marriage.
Huh? Years? "Debating tactics"?
I called you out on your claim that this was the "Obama
Recession." How do you get from there to here?
Do you really think that we aren't aware that you are the child molester from Sacramento?
Constitutions are supposed to be vague. It is the purpose and
directive of courts of appeals to determine what the language in a
constitution means, and to create (yes, create) law by issuing
decisions and rulings along those lines.
Seriously, everyone in this country is so f'n ignorant as to how best
to draft legislation that it's a farce these days.
No, that's the modern take.... That it's a "living document". Judges weren't supposed to create laws.
I'
m a strict Originalist.
OUr system is so fucked up because there are only two methods of correcting errant judges - amending the Constitution (which apparently doesn't work) or appointing successor judges who will rule differently.
Our Republic is being subverted by judges making laws rather than interpreting them.
what role you see the judiciary playing. And it is important to understand that
the left and the right in American politics see the judicial role very
differently.
First, the left sees judges as the action arm, or at least an impregnable
bastion of defense in support of progressive notions. The action arm can be seen
in areas such as abortion, religion in the public square, criminal procedure,
the right to bear arms, and the death penalty. The impregnable defense phase can
be seen when the state supreme courts, as is almost routinely the case, declare
unconstitutional any kind of tort reform passed in the states. It can be seen at
the federal level when federal term limits are declared off limits. It can be
seen when any type of reform to class action lawsuits is attempted.
Second, on the right you have
individuals who see judges as aloof from politics,
who believe that a judge’s role is to determine the original understanding
of the instrument before it, be that a contract, a statute or a constitution.
Third, it is important to understand that in the United States the legal culture
is thoroughly and completely controlled by the left. This is true in the law
schools. It is true in the American Bar Association. The legal culture,
accordingly, is a culture that is hostile to the notions of judicial
traditionalists. Thus, and this is important to understand when you’re
thinking about judicial selection, blind draws into the country’s legal pool
will produce by and large adherents of the left’s view of what a judge
should be. Fifth, this split is new between the right and the left. I believe
that for 150 or perhaps even 160 years in this country Republicans and Democrats
had a
similar view as to what judges did and didn’t do. But that has changed. And
I think it is important that we understand this.
Justice Clifford Taylor
No, that's the modern take.... That it's a "living document". Judges
weren't supposed to create laws.
I'
m a strict Originalist.
OUr system is so fucked up because there are only two methods of
correcting errant judges - amending the Constitution (which apparently
doesn't work) or appointing successor judges who will rule differently.
Our Republic is being subverted by judges making laws rather than
interpreting them.
You know absolutely nothing about the English legal system then, Ragnar. And i've usually thought you to be knowledgeable and intelligent.
When you get a clue, I'll start paying to your arguments again.
This may provide you with a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
You're so wrong on so many levels. The statutory law that we have in the US started out as codification of the common law alread in existence. But I know you can read.
Instead of relying on a year or two of law school, you should really talk to some practicing lawyers, or better yet, a judge or two.
I had a fascinating talk with a local judge about this exact problem....
And believe me, I got an earful of behind the scenes knowledge.