offender has a weapon.
Which leads to the question "what does the legal system define as a weapon?".
I know a crowbar counts from what Graeme has said
the maximum applicable sentence, to be served without parole, is the consequence.
And this is what has pissed me off about this whole debate. It is the idea that some ill-educated ill-informed politician is allowed to tell a knowledgeable experienced judge how to best do the job.
Why in any semblance of a sane universe do we let the dickheads who nothing about a particular case decide how best apply the law?
/insert sound of frustration followed by head banging on keyhw g gba-
So biology does influence gender?
In my whanau, everyone takes the lids off their own bottles, whether preserving jars or booze...everyone learns the tricks for the recalcitrant containers
While of course anyone can get the lid of a troublesome bottle many women/females have learned the tool that requires the least effort to use is a man/male.
Seriously I think Gio's point is pretty compelling about gender roles being social constructs. But I really also think he is weakening his point by insisting it be absolute. There really are some gender roles that have a strong biological basis.
And yes of course we are talking about overlapping bell curves here so there will always be females that extend into the normal male range for any biological trait.
But that doesn't negate the influence of biology on gender roles.
In the same way that my stating that does not negate the fact that many/most gender roles are socially defined as Gio has stated.
We live in the shades of grey between absolute black and absolute white. Both views are right in different situations.
Gio I understand your point and it is useful. But I think you are taking it to an extreme by being absolute.
A male gender role in modern society is to take lids of bottles*. The role is based on biology, testosterone affects muscle mass and hence the gender role is defined by the biology.
*in other societies you can substitute any activity the benefits from strength
Back on topic (hah!)
What's the exclamation mark for?
Perhaps expressing the futility of expecting us to do anything other than allow the random firing of neurons to lead us from subject to subject :P
You know I look at this stuff with a different eye.
Mika's picture looks odd to me not because it's a full frontal male nude but because the fake boobs are so unreal. That is part of the art I know but I guess it just doesn't strike a chord with me for some reason.
I grew up seeing naked/nude people all the time. The naturist was a magazine I'd look at in the hope (vain I know in both senses) of seeing a picture of myself. None of the pictures in there, man woman or child, were remotely sexual. But some were art and all were real in a way that the exhibition pieces were not.
What strikes me about the pictures you showed was the weird aversion to the real human form. Why must bits be hidden or disguised? In the end, for me, it makes the art in question flawed and lacking in some way.
I've never wanted to breed little islands.
Really? I can understand not wanting to breed babies but making islands would be really cool in a geeky engineering way of course.
An archipelago even?
Also - Baby on Board signs.
... were originally a fad because of a single incident where the mother was rescued from the car but the baby wasn't noticed and died. Logically the sign should come out of the car when the baby is not on board.
Of course when paired with the loser sticker it all makes sense.
I am not due until *March*
Right moving on to names then?
Heh we got into the habit of calling our friend's bumps, Otto.
Surprisingly none of them chose to name the child that?