This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Flee
Pages: 1 ... 403404405 406407 ... 520
12121
« on: November 20, 2014, 04:27:26 PM »
This current trend of more and more courts ruling on marriage equality is great and all, but stuff like this shows that the US still has a long way to go.
12122
« on: November 20, 2014, 04:25:54 PM »
So is it up yet?
12123
« on: November 20, 2014, 02:51:54 PM »
Nope. My girlfriend does though. I always thought it was rather strange.
12124
« on: November 20, 2014, 02:51:10 PM »
I'm uploading the thing right now, hold your god damn tacos Gasai.
Oh boy oh boy oh boy.
12125
« on: November 20, 2014, 02:50:28 PM »
I would not be surprised if all the other cutscenes are on there too.
12126
« on: November 20, 2014, 01:16:35 PM »
I'm sure there's plenty, but one that comes to mind now (not coincidentially after reading an article about him in the paper) is a Belgian politician called Filip Dewinter. He's a far right (borderline racist) politician that few people support, but regardless of his ideologies, the man can talk. Like, mad impressive debating and public speaking skills. Which I, an aspiring lawyer, find admirable.
Is he like a more extreme Nigel Farage?
I suppose you could say that. Dewinter is relatively anti-Islam and anti-immigration. He's also a strong supporter of Flandres secceding from Wallonia, thereby splitting Belgium into two separate countries. Among the more controversial things he has done is shown sympathy for Belgian collaborators who sided with the nazi regime during WWII. Not that he's a Nazi himself, of course, he's just very pro-Flemish/central European identity.
12127
« on: November 20, 2014, 12:52:18 PM »
I'm sure there's plenty, but one that comes to mind now (not coincidentially after reading an article about him in the paper) is a Belgian politician called Filip Dewinter. He's a far right (borderline racist) politician that few people support, but regardless of his ideologies, the man can talk. Like, mad impressive debating and public speaking skills. Which I, an aspiring lawyer, find admirable.
12128
« on: November 20, 2014, 11:42:27 AM »
What's a boating poll?
That's the joke
people use upboat here
I've literally never seen that.
Instead of saying upvote, people say upboat.
Hm.
Commonly used in the context of "upboat 4 upboat". Spoiler This is the point where I upvote you, and you upvote me.
12129
« on: November 20, 2014, 11:36:33 AM »
I personally only pirate games for demo or testing purposes. Music and movies however? Buying DVD's is tedious, as I want a digital collection and am not looking to rip each and every copy that I buy. Furthermore, Netflix sucks over here and I have no interest in paying for a flawed service like that. And music? I don't want to rely on a streaming service for my music and find that tracking down individual songs to buy at a reasonably bitrate can be such a pain that I rather turn towards piracy.
Besides, it's a legal gray zone and more or less legal.
12130
« on: November 20, 2014, 11:26:47 AM »
I hope they took into account that if it wasn't available online, I doubt everybody who pirated things would just buy it instead.
They did. They account for 20% of all downloads to be done by people who would've otherwise bought the product.
12131
« on: November 20, 2014, 11:17:43 AM »
Federalist, of course.
12132
« on: November 20, 2014, 10:59:41 AM »
To further illustrate my previous post: Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Spoiler (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.[/i] Article 13 and 14 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Spoiler Article 13
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
2. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, with a view to achieving the full realization of this right:
(a) Primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all;
(b) Secondary education in its different forms, including technical and vocational secondary education, shall be made generally available and accessible to all by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education;
(c) Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education;
(d) Fundamental education shall be encouraged or intensified as far as possible for those persons who have not received or completed the whole period of their primary education;
(e) The development of a system of schools at all levels shall be actively pursued, an adequate fellowship system shall be established, and the material conditions of teaching staff shall be continuously improved.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
4. No part of this article shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions, subject always to the observance of the principles set forth in paragraph I of this article and to the requirement that the education given in such institutions shall conform to such minimum standards as may be laid down by the State.
Article 14
Each State Party to the present Covenant which, at the time of becoming a Party, has not been able to secure in its metropolitan territory or other territories under its jurisdiction compulsory primary education, free of charge, undertakes, within two years, to work out and adopt a detailed plan of action for the progressive implementation, within a reasonable number of years, to be fixed in the plan, of the principle of compulsory education free of charge for all. Furthermore, the right to education is also recognized by a protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Discrimination in Education. To conclude, education is most definitely a right, but it's one that is often lacking and poorly enforced.
12133
« on: November 20, 2014, 10:32:57 AM »
Is common law necessary adversarial? I haven't seen anything to suggest that'd be the case, but you'd know more of the minutiae than I.
Not at all. I'm not sure how much you still remember of our recent conversation, but "pure" common or civil law systems are practically extinct. For example, in common law countries, minor criminal offences (traffic violations, for one) are often dealt with on an inquisitorial basis, as having extensive debates and massive cases between a public prosecutor and the lawyer of defense over something this minor would be expensive and time consuming. Another example is how the Belgian system is generally inquisitorial, but for the Courts of Assize (criminal courts that only deal with the highest and most severe class of crimes such as murder), a trial with a jury is organized. It's still inquisitorial in its core, but for these cases the courts relies more on the work of the lawyers presenting their case and the opinions of the jury (which are clear adversarial elements) than other courts. So, longer answer short, generally speaking you will find that common law countries usually employ the adversarial system. However, in this day and age, common and civil law systems have become more intertwined than ever before, even to the point that traditional common law countries will have inquisitorial elements in their legal systems, and vice versa. The reason I brought this up in this thread is because the problem Kinder described has a lot to do with this. A judge in adversarial procedures is not supposed to actually investigate the case himself. He is extremely limited in what he can and can't do, and is merely there to listen to the arguments presented to him and then decide on which perspective provided is the right one. Situations like what Kinder described would easily be dismissed or result in the "victim" being called out on his bullshit by the court under an inquisitorial system, a privilege that judges in adversarial systems generally don't have.
12134
« on: November 20, 2014, 10:15:06 AM »
Superior? Not at all. It's the right view for America because more often than not a home invader will be armed Yes, perhaps it is the right view for America, But I don't live in America. I'm not talking about America. I'm talking about my home, about how I would react and about how I feel what the law applying to me should be like. Access to firearms is severely limited here. I'm not afraid and don't feel like I need a gun to protect myself, nor would my first instinct be to use lethal force against someone entering my house uninvited. I see nothing wrong with the current Belgian laws on self-defense, which don't allow the use of lethal force against someone that doesn't pose an imminent threat to yourself and the people you are with. Would I think of this differently if I grew up in what almost sounds like a warzone on American soil? Probably. But so would you, had you grown up in a community where people often still leave their doors unlocked, where guns are no part of daily life and where little fear of violence exists.
12135
« on: November 20, 2014, 10:05:01 AM »
I say anybody that breaks into your home or in your car should be shot with no charges pressed against you.
Strongly disagreed. This should only apply to cases where apparent danger exists to you and/or other persons.
is rape not an apparent danger?
Not entirely sure where you're getting the idea from that it wouldn't be.
12136
« on: November 20, 2014, 10:04:18 AM »
You can't really argue that it isn't, seeing how much legal basis exist for it.
12137
« on: November 20, 2014, 10:01:54 AM »
Relatively close with all of them, yes.
12138
« on: November 20, 2014, 07:39:57 AM »
I fucking hate this shit
I have an uncle who owns a good 4 or 5 acres out in Mississipi that he lives and hunts on. One day he was out sighting in his rifles for hunting season or just outing hunting (can't remember), either way he fired his gun and the bullet entered inside a shack he has and injured a guy that was illegally on the land and poaching. So what does the scumbag do? Sue my uncle
Inquistorial > Adversarial bro. Just like how Statutory/Civil > Common.
12139
« on: November 20, 2014, 07:31:09 AM »
Scarab gun or portal gun.
Unless mechs and stuff like that count. In that case, a gundam from that anime.
12140
« on: November 20, 2014, 07:27:45 AM »
That's what I mean by I agree with you, a certain amount of force is unnecessary, but the law shouldn't enable criminals when they're the ones in the wrong.
Well yeah, that's what I've been saying all along. Because I don't believe that shooting a person on sight for the mere reason of him being on your property without authorization should be legal, people seem to think that I am against self-defense. I am merely saying that I oppose the ultimate castle doctrine, where the killing of anyone intruding on your property is justified without it being a last resort to defend yourself and others. Trust me, I don't support the ridiculous practices of thieves and rapists sueing people for defending themselves. Although, admittedly, this has a lot to do with what some would consider fundamental flaws in the US legal system.
12141
« on: November 20, 2014, 07:21:25 AM »
But say you tell them to put their hands up and they don't comply. They instead rush you and try to take your gun. Do you agree with emptying the mag on them? Yes. You should obviously try to get him to surrender and call the police if you can, but if he doesn't comply you should be able to shoot him with no legal repercussions.
This is the exact thing I've been trying to argue this entire thread. Lethal force should be a last resort, only to be applied when imminent harm to you and/or others is present. Should you be able to shoot someone for the sole reason of them entering your home without your permission? No, I don't believe so. However, if it is clear that they mean to cause physical harm and violently come on to you? You should have every right to defend yourself, even with lethal force. But killing someone over attempted robbery? Shooting a man who's running away once you confront him? Especially when the situation could've been resolved otherwise? Hell no, I can't agree with that. Either way, this seems to be a very cultural thing, as I feel very safe in my home. Incidents like what you described above rarely ever happen and would make national news. If a person would find his way into my house, I would never expect him to have done so for the purpose of raping or killing. I would a million times sooner assume an accident or an attempted robbery, something I wouldn't ever consider killing anyone over. You seem to claim that your experiences give you a superior or more correct insight to mine, which is perhaps true for LA and the areas where you have lived. However, it doesn't mean this is some kind of global truth. So no, I wouldn't shoot an intruder unless I absolutely had to in order to defend myself or others from imminent harm.
12142
« on: November 20, 2014, 06:12:04 AM »
You'd end up having people that know literally nothing about the issues voting for the men and women that would lead society. I don't know how you can think that is a good idea.
That is why proper education is a thing. Besides, that happens in arguably a great deal of all cases where voting isn't mandatory either.
12143
« on: November 20, 2014, 06:06:40 AM »
I don't know what it's like in Belgium, but if you would've lived in LA like I had or anywhere in America you know somebody breaking into your house is going to rob and/or hurt you. In America, maybe. There have been break ins where people go into a house solely to rape or kill. Which warrants the use of lethal force as self defense, like I said. Shooting or killing someone merely for breaking in, however? That's not something I can agree with. Hold them at gunpoint, tell them to back off or lay down as you call the police. If they chose to make a move and display aggression, you should be free to defend yourself and others. But shooting and killing a man for entering your home without your permission? That is most definitely excessive use of force. Lethal force is and always should be a last resort to protect yourself and other persons. The mere fact that a scenario takes place in your home does not change that.
12144
« on: November 20, 2014, 06:00:01 AM »
I say anybody that breaks into your home or in your car should be shot with no charges pressed against you.
Strongly disagreed. This should only apply to cases where apparent danger exists to you and/or other persons.
I agree with you to a certain extent, but if someone breaks into your house, the intent to cause damage is already there. Defending yourself against that intent should be an obvious reaction and in accordance with sensible laws.
Shooting and killing a person for the mere fact that they broke in or trespassed does not fall under sensible laws, imo.
12145
« on: November 20, 2014, 05:58:28 AM »
So if a guy breaks through your front door he's most likely there to take a shit or borrow a cup of sugar?
Looking at my front door, I would be incredibly impressed if anyone is able to break through that. Combine that with my wonderful alarm system that will have the cops over here in minutes, I am not particularly concerned. Regardless, that would still not be a reason to shoot him.
12146
« on: November 20, 2014, 05:19:02 AM »
If there's somebody in your home he's there to rob you or for the purpose of raping or hurting someone. Tell that to the hundreds of people who were shot by accident for finding themselves on someone else's property. The many examples of people shooting their own family members because they're thought of as intruders come to mind. If someone breaks into my home I'm dropping them. Wouldn't you? Without knowing for sure they're there to cause me harm? No, I wouldn't.
12147
« on: November 20, 2014, 04:54:01 AM »
I have actually never seen their movie.
You're not missing much really.
Have you listened to many of their songs?
Not really. Care to link some?
12148
« on: November 20, 2014, 04:48:35 AM »
I have actually never seen their movie.
12149
« on: November 20, 2014, 04:47:01 AM »
I say anybody that breaks into your home or in your car should be shot with no charges pressed against you.
Strongly disagreed. This should only apply to cases where apparent danger exists to you and/or other persons.
12150
« on: November 20, 2014, 04:31:08 AM »
That's why I said ask Casper.
>.>
Perhaps, perhaps. Changed your avatar I see? Nothing less weeaby?
Pages: 1 ... 403404405 406407 ... 520
|
Show Posts