I don't really think it's a question of "ethical".
As a water trap, it's reasonably humane. It's also highly targeted, which prevents the collateral damage that typically accompanies open water traps and poisons. And lastly, it appears that it should be highly effective.
The only way this would be unethical is if it was constructed in such a way to intentionally inflict additional torment on its victims or to cause them to die very slowly due to indifference to their suffering.
It's vaguely creepy in the sense that they're crude representations of living things which are being "abused", but since they're inanimate objects, it doesn't bother me at all.
Now if someone was turning a child's (or a specific one that had sentimental meaning from childhood for an adult) treasured toy inside out, that would be a whole different situation,
I just wish Valve would make a more realistic-looking and less stuffed-animal-looking hatcrab. Or a cat costume that looks like a headcrab. I would then rename my cat "Lamar".
I don't think the author of that article understands what IQ is-- it's a measure of tested intelligence relative to one's peers (based on age group), with the assumption that everyone will do better on the tests as they gain more knowledge and experience to work from. A kid who scores 140, for example, is theoretically going to score around 140 as a young adult, and at any other point in life, barring diseases that affect cognitive abilities.
It's really not that exciting that a child scores high at a given age, since they're still going to look really stupid compared to most young adults who have more advanced vocabulary, mathematical knowledge, and refined spacial recognition abilities.
Yeah, I agree with others. It's not the farting, it's how he went about it, that got him in trouble. Was he farting on other kids? Probably. And sometimes when you do something "normal" in a particularly obnoxious or otherwise abnormal way, you lose the benefit of the doubt as to the deed being natural and necessary, and get written-up for it. Sounds like a good life lesson, one that even the kid's parents should probably learn from rather than making a stink about.
Also, it's hard to just say the elderly lady's death just a few months later is "unrelated". While she may not have died of those injuries or a direct complication of them, the stress related to such a traumatic injury certainly can set a cascade of health problems into motion.
Sure, sue them. It's just another judgement against the parents for their lack of supervision and otherwise bad parenting. I'd like to think most children are taught to respect others and not run-down little old ladies.
It's worth noting that there is a difference between suing someone, and winning that lawsuit. If the parent(s) weren't remiss, and the kids weren't so reckless as to fit the definition of "reckless or negligent disregard for human life", they probably won't be on the hook for damage.
I think it's also a bit inconsiderate to accuse the old lady's family of being motivated by greed. If some hooligan tots ran-down my parents on a sidewalk and cut their lives short, I'd want to hold someone accountable. Since you can never be certain if a stranger's apology means they feel remorse, having a court part them with their money is certainly a good way to make sure they feel some loss and some remorse. It's not so much a matter of putting a price on a life, it's about establishing that someone is accountable, and the magnitude of that accountability.
Do people really live in this level of fear in their own homes? It might be time to relocate.
While fanciful, most of these security designs would also be rather expensive, not to mention unsightly. Then there's the hazard angle, there are few security systems that aren't a double-edged sword, there is some level of peril posed to whoever the system is engineered to protect (children could drown in a moat, fall from a 2nd-story upside-down house window, be mauled by the dog, pull on the tear gas vines, get trapped in the holding cell, etc.).
The best security systems are the passive measures anyone can take to make their home less of a target. Keeping trees and bushes trimmed-back from doors and windows and enough exterior lighting on motion sensors to take away any cover that would-be criminals would have both during the day and night. Any sort of alarm system that would draw the attention of others. Good steel and glass security doors, and windows that hamper ingress. These things are all out there, people often choose not to install or use them correctly.
While I tend to be a fan of booby traps, this is plain idiotic for all the reasons mentioned, PLUS it might convey a false sense of security as well.
A few other points:
--While suffering deliberate harm at the hands of someone else is NEVER the victim's fault (it's the perpetrator's fault), victims often do make regrettable decisions that have entirely predictable consequences. It's best to identify risks and avoid them, rather than becoming a statistic.
--Rape is an act of violence and power, not lust. It seems that a lot of folks are confused on this. Escalation seems to be a poor choice, given that motivation.
--On "teaching men not to rape", what a great suggestion, I'm shocked nobody has thought of that before! Right. In the real world, people don't always do what they're taught. There are a lot of very defective people on the loose, whether their psychosis is fueled by genetic/physiological/pharmacological factors, by life experiences, by religion, or by peer pressure. About all you can do is try to avoid 'em.
--What Zardoz said about guns and a conspicuous part of the male anatomy that I will sooner not mention directly than use baby talk.
The Nini Rosso version is on Youtube, I'd highly recommend watching it. The song has has words,too. I heard that frequently while growing up ,my dad had picked up the record whenn he was stationed in Italy when that was composed and recorded. There were so many great Italian songs in that decade.
As a water trap, it's reasonably humane. It's also highly targeted, which prevents the collateral damage that typically accompanies open water traps and poisons. And lastly, it appears that it should be highly effective.
The only way this would be unethical is if it was constructed in such a way to intentionally inflict additional torment on its victims or to cause them to die very slowly due to indifference to their suffering.
Now if someone was turning a child's (or a specific one that had sentimental meaning from childhood for an adult) treasured toy inside out, that would be a whole different situation,
I just wish Valve would make a more realistic-looking and less stuffed-animal-looking hatcrab. Or a cat costume that looks like a headcrab. I would then rename my cat "Lamar".
It's really not that exciting that a child scores high at a given age, since they're still going to look really stupid compared to most young adults who have more advanced vocabulary, mathematical knowledge, and refined spacial recognition abilities.
Yeah, I enjoyed the psych courses I took.
It's worth noting that there is a difference between suing someone, and winning that lawsuit. If the parent(s) weren't remiss, and the kids weren't so reckless as to fit the definition of "reckless or negligent disregard for human life", they probably won't be on the hook for damage.
I think it's also a bit inconsiderate to accuse the old lady's family of being motivated by greed. If some hooligan tots ran-down my parents on a sidewalk and cut their lives short, I'd want to hold someone accountable. Since you can never be certain if a stranger's apology means they feel remorse, having a court part them with their money is certainly a good way to make sure they feel some loss and some remorse. It's not so much a matter of putting a price on a life, it's about establishing that someone is accountable, and the magnitude of that accountability.
While fanciful, most of these security designs would also be rather expensive, not to mention unsightly. Then there's the hazard angle, there are few security systems that aren't a double-edged sword, there is some level of peril posed to whoever the system is engineered to protect (children could drown in a moat, fall from a 2nd-story upside-down house window, be mauled by the dog, pull on the tear gas vines, get trapped in the holding cell, etc.).
The best security systems are the passive measures anyone can take to make their home less of a target. Keeping trees and bushes trimmed-back from doors and windows and enough exterior lighting on motion sensors to take away any cover that would-be criminals would have both during the day and night. Any sort of alarm system that would draw the attention of others. Good steel and glass security doors, and windows that hamper ingress. These things are all out there, people often choose not to install or use them correctly.
A few other points:
--While suffering deliberate harm at the hands of someone else is NEVER the victim's fault (it's the perpetrator's fault), victims often do make regrettable decisions that have entirely predictable consequences. It's best to identify risks and avoid them, rather than becoming a statistic.
--Rape is an act of violence and power, not lust. It seems that a lot of folks are confused on this. Escalation seems to be a poor choice, given that motivation.
--On "teaching men not to rape", what a great suggestion, I'm shocked nobody has thought of that before! Right. In the real world, people don't always do what they're taught. There are a lot of very defective people on the loose, whether their psychosis is fueled by genetic/physiological/pharmacological factors, by life experiences, by religion, or by peer pressure. About all you can do is try to avoid 'em.
--What Zardoz said about guns and a conspicuous part of the male anatomy that I will sooner not mention directly than use baby talk.