Ok, I enjoyed my time here at BlogSpot, but in order to dominate the world, I must continue to step up and for now I have moved onto WordPress, because it's comment system is easier - and I need to get popular in order to dominate the world.
So, right, you can find my continued rambles at the following address:
http://georgiaonafasttrain.wordpress.com
Please continue to follow me loyally!
Au Revoir, mon BlogSpot,
Georgia
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
Police work for the state, idiot.
I love dumb people. Of course, that results in alot of love for thyself, considering how dumb I can be.
But I am not so dumb to think that the police and nurses are independant from the state. Any crime you commit against a person becomes just that much worse when they fall directly below the state - as upstanding citizens of society such as the cops. Yes, they sit above the average person in the state - they have superpowers of arrest, so why mess with them? Also, fines and jail terms are just too hefty now days, especially with all these new laws in W.A.
But that's enough of that, let us discuss something complex and contentious.
So here I am, once again in Political Science, talking about abortion. It's a complex and contentious issue.
We are looking at the argument of Michael Tooley. He says if we look at abortion, we must look at infanticide along side that. He also says, that in order to make rights claims, you must have interests and desires to make them. Thus, you only have a right to life if you have an interest and desire to continue to live. And you must also have a self concious ssense of existence and have a memory and future projection of desire to continue to exist. (But what about goldfish who allegedly only have a 3 second memory?)
Of course, lucky for Michael Tooley, he is Canadian. This is because his argument is void in W.A. where infanticide no longer exists as a crime. Post-natally depressed mothers who kill their baby are now charged with murder, which carries a far heftier sentence.
I'm not sure I like Tooley's argument, he says if you have desires and interests, you have rights. But see, animals have desires and interests (to not be tortured, to be fed, etc) and yet, we don't give them any rights! Persons have desires and interests, and persons can be more than just human beings, the can be animals too.
So here we now have Tooley's conclusions, which are rather interesting, and are as copied down from my lecturer's notes:
1. All abortions are justified (as long as done painlessly)
2. Infanticide is justified
3. OK to kill babies with severe deformities
4. Killing adults that are not persons can be justified
5. Some non human animals may be persons and hence have the right to life
6. Have to accept these conclusions if argue that abortion is ok because the foetus is not a person.
Ok, so this all makes sense, but it seems a little cruel, no? I guess though, he raises a mighty complex question: if you are willing to abort a baby, are you willing to accept that the rest of the above list is fair? If you abort a baby, will you be ok with me killing an adult who has no interests or desires?
I'm baffled. Absolutely baffled.
And I feel incredibly pretentious and deep and intelligent after this little ramble. Hopefully this lasts awhile.
I should depart, and attempt to make up my mind on where I stand on Tooley's argument.
And also, try and decipher Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument at the same time.
Farewell.
But I am not so dumb to think that the police and nurses are independant from the state. Any crime you commit against a person becomes just that much worse when they fall directly below the state - as upstanding citizens of society such as the cops. Yes, they sit above the average person in the state - they have superpowers of arrest, so why mess with them? Also, fines and jail terms are just too hefty now days, especially with all these new laws in W.A.
But that's enough of that, let us discuss something complex and contentious.
So here I am, once again in Political Science, talking about abortion. It's a complex and contentious issue.
We are looking at the argument of Michael Tooley. He says if we look at abortion, we must look at infanticide along side that. He also says, that in order to make rights claims, you must have interests and desires to make them. Thus, you only have a right to life if you have an interest and desire to continue to live. And you must also have a self concious ssense of existence and have a memory and future projection of desire to continue to exist. (But what about goldfish who allegedly only have a 3 second memory?)
Of course, lucky for Michael Tooley, he is Canadian. This is because his argument is void in W.A. where infanticide no longer exists as a crime. Post-natally depressed mothers who kill their baby are now charged with murder, which carries a far heftier sentence.
I'm not sure I like Tooley's argument, he says if you have desires and interests, you have rights. But see, animals have desires and interests (to not be tortured, to be fed, etc) and yet, we don't give them any rights! Persons have desires and interests, and persons can be more than just human beings, the can be animals too.
So here we now have Tooley's conclusions, which are rather interesting, and are as copied down from my lecturer's notes:
1. All abortions are justified (as long as done painlessly)
2. Infanticide is justified
3. OK to kill babies with severe deformities
4. Killing adults that are not persons can be justified
5. Some non human animals may be persons and hence have the right to life
6. Have to accept these conclusions if argue that abortion is ok because the foetus is not a person.
Ok, so this all makes sense, but it seems a little cruel, no? I guess though, he raises a mighty complex question: if you are willing to abort a baby, are you willing to accept that the rest of the above list is fair? If you abort a baby, will you be ok with me killing an adult who has no interests or desires?
I'm baffled. Absolutely baffled.
And I feel incredibly pretentious and deep and intelligent after this little ramble. Hopefully this lasts awhile.
I should depart, and attempt to make up my mind on where I stand on Tooley's argument.
And also, try and decipher Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument at the same time.
Farewell.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Undies on the Outside.
I’m sitting here, in Criminal Law II, and we’re discussing the new Homicide Laws in this sleepy little death toll town (aka Perth, thank you Panda Band for that song). I must say, the repealing of Infanticide upset me, mainly because it’s a section I never got to charge my imaginary clients with.
See, we get “scenarios” that the law dept at uni make up and we have to decide what we charge the imaginary people in the scenarios with, which is a favourite past time of mine: charging these made up characters with various, heinous crimes – without caring what their defences may or may not be.
I also don’t like the idea that I can no longer charge my imaginary criminals with wilful murder – because that’s been merged into murder, which is no fun. I loved condemning the imaginary criminals (good band name by the way) in the scenarios to life imprisonment for wilful murder; it sounds just that much worse. Imaginary crime fighting is my thing, clearly. I should be an imaginary superhero. Can you imagine it? SuperGeorgia! Or something along those lines... As long as I was super buff and had some cool power to control nature like Poison ivy. And I’d need a cooler name, probably something based on whatever power I had. I’m one confused imaginary superhero.
Anyways, back to the law, no more infanticide means that the post-natal-ly depressed mother is now a murderer, who will get a much harsher sentence. Of course, killing your baby is sick, but let’s not make it worse! Let us try and rehabilitate the mother, who is probably super grieving.
There are many more issues we could discuss with these new homicide laws but they’re just not that interesting, or we haven’t discussed them in class yet, thus I haven’t really thought very deeply about them. When I do, I may share them with you.
Until then, I shall continue to fight imaginary crime as an imaginary superhero. Because that is my new life’s calling.
Over and out!
Georgia,
premature cat lady by day, imaginary superhero by night!
See, we get “scenarios” that the law dept at uni make up and we have to decide what we charge the imaginary people in the scenarios with, which is a favourite past time of mine: charging these made up characters with various, heinous crimes – without caring what their defences may or may not be.
I also don’t like the idea that I can no longer charge my imaginary criminals with wilful murder – because that’s been merged into murder, which is no fun. I loved condemning the imaginary criminals (good band name by the way) in the scenarios to life imprisonment for wilful murder; it sounds just that much worse. Imaginary crime fighting is my thing, clearly. I should be an imaginary superhero. Can you imagine it? SuperGeorgia! Or something along those lines... As long as I was super buff and had some cool power to control nature like Poison ivy. And I’d need a cooler name, probably something based on whatever power I had. I’m one confused imaginary superhero.
Anyways, back to the law, no more infanticide means that the post-natal-ly depressed mother is now a murderer, who will get a much harsher sentence. Of course, killing your baby is sick, but let’s not make it worse! Let us try and rehabilitate the mother, who is probably super grieving.
There are many more issues we could discuss with these new homicide laws but they’re just not that interesting, or we haven’t discussed them in class yet, thus I haven’t really thought very deeply about them. When I do, I may share them with you.
Until then, I shall continue to fight imaginary crime as an imaginary superhero. Because that is my new life’s calling.
Over and out!
Georgia,
premature cat lady by day, imaginary superhero by night!
P.S.
The boy sitting infront of me looks just like Logan from Gilmore girls, and Lou just pointed out that he is not wearing shoes. Cool by me, except that it's freezing and muddy and wet outside. What happened to the desert, Australia?
Global warming.
Out.
Global warming.
Out.
Yeah well, pancakes don’t sell very well. Not a lie, Jason told me so.
I am in Political Science: Contemporary Political Theory. We are discussing some very important things, such as human rights. Well, we're only discussing human rights. We have decided that this piece of paper (which, as per my last post, may be that very important bit of paper my lecturer there was talking about) is full of lots of rubbish.
For instance, "Everyone has a right to take part in the government of this country." Not true. As my very intelligent, best ever lecturer reminds us, fifteen year olds can't.
I truly do enjoy this class, because we can openly violate human rights in here, like the paparazzi do.
And furthermore, why aren't I on the committee who decides these human rights? From this lecture along, I surely have a better idea of human rights than say, anyone else on that committee. Most of these people are overly religious and narrow minded anyways, if this document is anything to go by. Seriously. I think, however, we should elect my lecturer to the human rights committee, he is awesome and knows everything and my best lecturer ever and Louise is laughing at me, but she's really embarassing so whatever. Yeah, Louise, my god, you try being the best ever blogger. I dare you.
I should return my attention to my lecturer now. I just asked a really intelligent question about merit, who decides what it is o the basis of acceptance into higher education. Afterall, we're not all good at exams - I suck at them.
Of course, I somehow managed to slip into higher education quite nicely and I'm smarter here than I was at school.
Yeah, eyes and ears and attention back to my lecturer, I know!
See ya later, alligators.
p.s. Lou, can I have your notes?
For instance, "Everyone has a right to take part in the government of this country." Not true. As my very intelligent, best ever lecturer reminds us, fifteen year olds can't.
I truly do enjoy this class, because we can openly violate human rights in here, like the paparazzi do.
And furthermore, why aren't I on the committee who decides these human rights? From this lecture along, I surely have a better idea of human rights than say, anyone else on that committee. Most of these people are overly religious and narrow minded anyways, if this document is anything to go by. Seriously. I think, however, we should elect my lecturer to the human rights committee, he is awesome and knows everything and my best lecturer ever and Louise is laughing at me, but she's really embarassing so whatever. Yeah, Louise, my god, you try being the best ever blogger. I dare you.
I should return my attention to my lecturer now. I just asked a really intelligent question about merit, who decides what it is o the basis of acceptance into higher education. Afterall, we're not all good at exams - I suck at them.
Of course, I somehow managed to slip into higher education quite nicely and I'm smarter here than I was at school.
Yeah, eyes and ears and attention back to my lecturer, I know!
See ya later, alligators.
p.s. Lou, can I have your notes?
I Am In Contract Law
I am learning about document titles, which are very special important bits of paper, but I clearly and obviously don't know anything about them nor will I ever understand them, as a boy just asked for some examples and our tutor was like: "No! You will not understand it is very complex blah blah blah."
Clearly these pieces of paper as not that important, otherwise she'd want us to know about them... Unless they're so important they're too important for our ears! WHOA! Can you imagine that? How important! Wonder what's on them, ASIO's secret password? How to get to Diagon Alley? (Because it's not through Collins...) Edward Cullen's address? (My god, please let it be.) It better be, considering how important she's making them sound.
I'm a little bored, as you can imagine. I don't get this case but I won't ask. I'll look it up online later, or ask dad, who knows... Someone who makes more sense than the small, fast-talking lady up the front of the class. TOO FAST! She talks like me, and we all know I can't be a lecturer becaue I talk as fast as a werewolf runs.
I am now a blogger. I shall be famous! Like the TwilightGuy or something!
Clearly these pieces of paper as not that important, otherwise she'd want us to know about them... Unless they're so important they're too important for our ears! WHOA! Can you imagine that? How important! Wonder what's on them, ASIO's secret password? How to get to Diagon Alley? (Because it's not through Collins...) Edward Cullen's address? (My god, please let it be.) It better be, considering how important she's making them sound.
I'm a little bored, as you can imagine. I don't get this case but I won't ask. I'll look it up online later, or ask dad, who knows... Someone who makes more sense than the small, fast-talking lady up the front of the class. TOO FAST! She talks like me, and we all know I can't be a lecturer becaue I talk as fast as a werewolf runs.
I am now a blogger. I shall be famous! Like the TwilightGuy or something!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
