Reconciling assholes for nearly a decade.

FUCKING ACTIVIST JUDGES

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/11/fetus.carpool.ap/index.html

Clearly this judge is pro choice.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 12th, 2006
I can see where you'd think that, but I agree with the judge's statement that, "The law is meant to fill empty space in a vehicle." So, whether the judge is pro-choice or not, if the intent of the law is to fill an empty space, then the woman doesn't qualify - and her pregnancy has no bearing on the issue.
Permalink bpd 
January 12th, 2006
Dear bpd -

Please look up "sarcasm" on dictionary.com or an equivalent resource.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 12th, 2006
I swear to SOCK that half the people on this board have Asperger's.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 12th, 2006
For my future reference, not to mention the edification of all readers, what was it about your post that should have clued me in to the fact that you were being sarcastic?
Permalink bpd 
January 12th, 2006
Haha. I got a kick out of this one... what would be the fetus's alternative? Catch a ride with someone else?

Actually, it could have been bad if the judge *did* rule that a pregnant woman would count as two passengers. Can you imagine what the nearly bankrupt airlines would do with this?
Permalink KC 
January 12th, 2006
bpd -

You're fucking kidding, right?
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 12th, 2006
Don't sweat it, he needs to work on his communication skills.
Permalink ronk! 
January 12th, 2006
"what was it about your post that should have clued me in to the fact that you were being sarcastic?"

The author of the post.
Permalink a2800276 
January 12th, 2006
There are two recognisable symbols of sarcasm, the :-} smiley and the name Mark Warner.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
January 12th, 2006
Mark, if only for a moment, let's assume that I'm not kidding.

a2800276, that's funny.
Permalink bpd 
January 12th, 2006
Don't sweat it, 'bpd', there's a few of us who can't tell when Mark is "kidding" or being serious.

Regarding the argument -- I thought the judge used nice judgement in this case. Otherwise he'd be stepping all over the "is the fetus a person?" question, and off we go.

Using the criteria of "Filling a space in the car" was good. After all, I'm carrying hundreds if not thousands of proto-humans with me right now, but they don't count either.
Permalink AllanL5 
January 12th, 2006
But Allan, if she were 9 months pregnant, and a drunk driver caused her to lose her baby in an accident, would that be manslaughter? Currently, at least in some states if not nationally, I believe it would be.
Permalink Phil 
January 12th, 2006
Yes Allan, there's a few of you, and you all have Asperger's.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 12th, 2006
Plucking idiots.
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 12th, 2006
"But Allan, if she were 9 months pregnant, and a drunk driver caused her to lose her baby in an accident, would that be manslaughter? Currently, at least in some states if not nationally, I believe it would be."

Yes, Scott Peterson was convicted of killing two people. His wife and his 8.5 month unborn son.

I think the "taking space in the car" or "reducing vehicles on the road" route are reasonable.
Permalink KC 
January 12th, 2006
The "space in the car" idea is an interesting concept, but ultimately the goal of HOV lanes (we just started adopting this concept in Ontario, at a time when many US areas are eliminating it) is to reduce cars on the road. e.g. If a parent and 4 kids are in the HOV, theoretically they didn't fulfill the spirit of the HOV lane because none of those 4 kids could have driven their own vehicle.

So HOV lanes should require more than one licensed driver, currentl in possession of, or capable of quickly acquiring, a fossil-fuel sucking car.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 12th, 2006
"So HOV lanes should require more than one licensed driver, currentl in possession of, or capable of quickly acquiring, a fossil-fuel sucking car."

By that logic, a school bus couldn't use HOV...

Or one parent driving the kids of multiple parents...

Both of which would reduce the number of vehicles on the road.
Permalink KC 
January 12th, 2006
Yeah but both of those scenarios occur with or without the existence of HOV lanes - there are other benefits above and beyond being able to use a special lane.

The HOV lane is supposed to encourage more people to car pool, so those shown to have carpooled before its creation shouldn't count in the occupant counting.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 12th, 2006
OK so now you're trolling, Dennis. In order to incentivize carpooling, we should reward previous non-carpoolers with goodies and tell the people already carpooling to go fuck themselves?

Good logic. :)
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 12th, 2006
Dude, learn how to read a joke.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 12th, 2006
I'm just trying to fit in
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 12th, 2006
I must admit that like Mark, did not get the joke at first, but once it was pointed out, its hard to see it as anything but.
Permalink Phil 
January 12th, 2006
What does the law say?

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 12th, 2006
I'd be hesitant to count a baby as another passenger.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 12th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics