Mostly unrelated, but my favorite story about people living in France (which I think I read here years ago, was it YOU?) was someone saying that they joined a gym in their French neighborhood, and whenever they would go to any kind of group exercise class there were always women just leaving in the middle of class to…

No, I think what she’s saying is when Kim REALLY doesn’t want to be seen, she has the ability to do so (i.e. when she’s recovering from cosmetic surgery after giving birth). I can almost bet they’re tipping off the paps right now to catch them walking around after this alleged robbery.

Yeah. It’s disquieting to see how much the commentariat has in common with the crowds at the Coliseum.

There were some powerful queens/empresses. But, they usually got that way after being shuffled off to some male at an early age, and being fortunate enough to have that male be weak in the right way. Many more attempted to take power and failed, because they didn’t believe women could reign. Even then, they would have…

But still...even if you get to be top dog, wouldn’t you rather go somewhere more, I dunno, fun? Like maybe a Roman villa on Capri at the height of the hedonistic empire or 1980's wall street (hey, indoor plumbing!), or Marie Antoinette’s Versaille. I mean, these guys can build any world they want, right?

You are clearly not from Texas.

I think that’s the question at play here: They are artificial constructs built for a purpose, and therefore incapable of consent. But at what level does that requirement for consent begin? How advanced does an artificial representation of a person need to be before it’s willingness to participate matters.

The show is reflecting the source material, but yes, it certainly should have been updated. That said, some women, myself included, could have fun being a cowgirl, gunslinger, or madam in a fantasy Wild West setting. But I would rather go to space. That said, a Western setting is cheaper to film.

It all depends on whether the robot exists as an entity with its own subjective experiences.

Where did I say it was? Equal treatment and fairness are guaranteed by a number of laws. Creating some extrajudicial tribunal to enact justice for an accuser only serves to deprive the accused of his day in court.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... at least let’s round up all their delicious toasted raviolis up first. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Read this for some more info CNN decided to leave out of their article:

The police said they were shot at. A gun was found by the boy. Does that automatically mean the kid shot at the police? No. It could have been a planted gun.

I get that, and it’s certainly far from proven that this shooting happened the way the officers involved said. But I don’t see a reason to make assumptions about these cops based on the actions of some cops elsewhere, or say they are evidently just cowards.

A 14 year-old running around with a gun and (allegedly) shooting at people is not the start of a sad story, but the result of one.

Yeah, I mean why would anyone be afraid of being shot at. They should have just let the kid keep shooting because, after all, their training will magically keep bullets from piercing their bodies.

This article is confusingly written. “Thus far unarmed” indicates he wasn’t armed at all? Or unarmed at the time of the police stopping him? Are the police claiming that the boy fired shots at them and thus they fired back? Or are we implying he wasn’t armed ever and the police are lying?

EDIT: So after reading the…

Weird shit: My husband had never seen The Rescuers, but had seen the Rescuers Down Under. I made him watch the first one and when I cried when they sang the Rescue Aid Society song I think he was secretly moved.

I know! But someone was thoughtful enough to give it its own clip.

The trailer omits Zsa Zsa’s best line in the movie: “I hate dat Kveen!”