April 23, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.13 has been released.
News: February 3, 2024: The February '24 Report is up.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
Well, I just finished that final essay thing, a lot faster than I thought I would. Still kinda sad, because it's certainly not quality work, but then nothing I write ever is, which just sends me back down another leg of the Disappointment Spiral. I really need to learn some time management, and work ethic, and initiative.
I played the demo of the game and it barely ran (But it did run!). I love the TW series especially Rome, but I just don't understand the tactics for this one. What should I be doing to utterly destroy my opponents? All I know about colonial warfare was that they stood in a line firing crappy guns and awesome cannons and then stabbed each other with bayonets.This is the problem I was having. A square is supposed to be anti cavalry but I never noticed that particularly, it seemed better to have a nice long line of fire to take down as many as possible then counter charge with my cavalry.
No because it never exists. It's the difference between me say planting a bomb on a site to blow up a town that will be built ther ein 10 years and never building the town.I get all that dude, but what I'm saying is that under the law, I can't really see my way to prosecuting the woman for doing it. How can you retroactively apply the rights that someone has now, to back before they (legally) existed? How can you punish a person for something that was not a crime, but somehow BECAME a crime in the intermediate time?
Again, I'm not taking a stance, just pointing out issues with the laws.
Ergh. I addressed that already.
You're not retroactively applying rights to the fetus. That would be like saying "What you did to that fetus at one month was a crime, retroactively". That's not what's happening.
You're applying rights to the being which DOES have rights. You're saying "What you did to that fetus at one month affected the fetus later in development, and that's a crime".
You are applying rights to the thing which has rights, now, not retroactively. The situation you created involved an organism which had no rights, sure, but that's immaterial. The fact still remains that you created a situation which eventually harmed a person with rights. It doesn't matter how you do that. You don't have to retroactively apply anything to anything.
So creating a situation that may harm someone in the future should be a crime? But aborting a fetus now, when it has no rights, prevents it from ever gaining its rights. Doesn't that make it also a crime to abort the fetus since that harms its future self in the sense that it's denied existence?
As there is no "Rule 34" of it
