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 ... 259260261 262263 ... 520
7801
« on: May 23, 2015, 06:57:28 AM »
But this isn't Zoo Tycoon 2 with all the Expansions.
I've downloaded and ran a cracked Zoo Tycoon 2 with all expansions on my laptop running Windows 8.1, so it should be possible for you too.
7802
« on: May 23, 2015, 06:36:49 AM »
Friendly reminder that blatant personal attacks against other members (any other member) are still against the rules and will result in warnings and bans if they keep up.
7803
« on: May 23, 2015, 06:28:04 AM »
Legally? Identity theft is, yes. On sep7agon? Only if it's not clear that it's a joke and it concerns a member or someone who could potentially be one.
7804
« on: May 23, 2015, 05:59:14 AM »
This doesn't seem to have much to do with racism at all. They're just going against the established "lore".
Not that I care about superheroes and all that, but to me this would be no different than comic book fans getting worked up over Captain America all of sudden being a female in the next movie for absolutely no reason. You would hardly call these people "sexist" for complaining about a character that has been a certain way for 65 years suddenly having something changed for no reason.
According to wiki, The Fantastic Four have been around for 55 years. All of a sudden deciding to make one of the lead characters black seems like a strange thing to do, then. If the Hulk would randomly become red instead of green in the next movie, fans would complain about that just the same and for the exact same reason too; not because they somehow have an issue with a certain race / color.
7805
« on: May 22, 2015, 04:17:52 PM »
Lack of discussion value.
That's fucking stupid
You know the rules. We did the survey and poll, and the majority decided that blatant shitposting without any discussion value whatsoever should result in threads being locked.
7806
« on: May 22, 2015, 03:52:11 PM »
Lack of discussion value.
7807
« on: May 22, 2015, 02:14:57 PM »
I vote we all move on from the "verb is wrong" portion of the day and talk about this game.
Aside from that, I also vote that we stop with the insults and name calling. There is no need for that.
7808
« on: May 22, 2015, 12:07:00 PM »
All we need is Yutaka.
Poor Yuta.
7809
« on: May 22, 2015, 09:10:12 AM »
Not sure if that would really count as child support though. Child support usually is the money that parents receive from the state to cover some of the extra expenses that taking care of child brings. This sounds more like your mom being forced to pay you for negligence or something.
7810
« on: May 22, 2015, 07:49:56 AM »
Bnet groups are dead. Groups will kill the mains.
We barely have much activity as it is on the mains. Adding groups will just make it significantly worse.
This isn't such a terrible idea then, though. "Hey, you people who still have a somewhat active group. Seeing how Bungie completely fucked you guys over, made everything blinding white and took away all group customization modes, are you perhaps interested in moving? You can have your own little ecosystem just the way it was before B.next. And if your group's a little slow (which it almost definitely is), you can use your sep7agon account to simply venture out into the mains or other groups. Win-win for both."
7811
« on: May 22, 2015, 07:45:43 AM »
What does the default rank say, by the way? Before you edited it. Mythic ++ ?
7812
« on: May 22, 2015, 07:44:49 AM »
Sure, Byrne made it to Mythic++, but we can all still beat him to Inheiritor, to do which you must call cheat a nigger 666 times.
I would actually not be surprised if there are people on here who called Cheat that well over 666 times already.
7813
« on: May 22, 2015, 06:32:43 AM »
Relevant.
7814
« on: May 22, 2015, 06:22:47 AM »
Oh shit. Nicely done.
7815
« on: May 22, 2015, 06:21:24 AM »
On the one hand, you have a "like" button under each post. It's a way of showing that you appreciate, like or agree with a certain post and can often be a measure of how popular an opinion this. This like feature has no effects apart from that.
On the other, there is the karma feature with upvotes and downvotes. Clicking the little arrow in the very right corner of someone's nameplate will reveal the upvote (green +) and downvote (red -) buttons. This affects a person's "karma" on the website, which in return partially determines your rank. As you can tell, people can be heroic, legendary and mythic. Aside from your time spent online and post count, this rank is determined by your karma. The more upvotes you get, the higher it becomes.
Moving this to the Septagon board, by the way.
7816
« on: May 22, 2015, 06:09:03 AM »
Would it not be more prudent to reform the Court, then? I could see myself supporting it if it were more like a restrained court of equity, that only intervened when our own judicial systems clearly violate the spirit of the Convention.
I personally would not be opposed to the Court being reformed, as I do think there are things that can be improved, but I have three issues with that. 1. What is a clear violation of the Convention? Something that vague would be extremely difficult to define and apply in a uniform matter. The idea behind the Convention is that all of its major articles providing in rights are essential and an expression of the core values of the instrument. For example, while you might not think that denying all prisoners the right to vote is not a clear violation of the spirit of human rights, a politically motivated and engaged person playing an active political role in his community who ends up being deprived of his right to vote because he just so happened to briefly end up in jail when the election took place, will probably think of that as a rather serious violation of his rights. 2. The advisory procedure has currently been made part of the ECHR Protocols, meaning that national courts will soon be able to ask prejudicial questions about issues regarding human rights. The Court's advice on the matter will then be non-binding and will serve as a guideline for the national system, while still giving the national courts the final say on the matter. 3. I realize that this might come across as weird, but the Court actually is rather prudent and restrained. All you hear about in the media are, of course, the few cases of controversy that involve the UK. Out of all the British cases brought before the court, less than 3% are actually declared admissible. The remaining 97% is turned down straight away because the Court realizes it falls out of its jurisdiction or does not deserve an answer. Out of those 3% of cases that are actually admissible, only 1 out of 6 actually results in a violation of the ECHR being found. This means that out of every 200 British cases brought before the Court, only a single one actually results in the Court ruling that the UK has violated a human right. And most of the times, those cases don't even make the mainstream media. So while I understand your concerns and I too think that the Court has crossed the line at times and could do with a reform, I do have to say that it really isn't as bad as it might seem. The media is obviously not going to report on the 199 cases where the Court decides that the UK is in the right or that they are not in the position to judge, but will focus on the 1 where it does to scream about how the evil European court is back to continuously tell the UK that it's wrong. But yeah, you're not alone in thinking that way. Several esteemed legal academics also take issue with the Court's occasional judicial activism. This is an ongoing debate and a very hot topic in international law right now, with both sides making some very good and compelling points.
7817
« on: May 21, 2015, 04:38:04 PM »
I can see your arguments, and you obviously have a better degree of nuance than I do on the matter, which is why I neglected to mention my own opinions in the OP.
My main problem with the ECtHR is its judicial activism. As I understand each issue in turn, the Convention deliberately excluded issues of franchise and how far it should extend, yet the Court determined it feel under the Convention's remit; the right to artificial insemination was justified under Article 8, yet the originators of the Convention had absolutely no intention of that when framing the article; and the case of whole-life tariffs was Vinter and Others v. UK (2013) wherein the Court ruled 16-to-1 that whole-life tariffs violate Article 3.
I agree that the UK ought to remain in the Convention, but I don't see why our own courts shouldn't have primacy in its interpretation. Our legal system is obviously different to most of Europe's in its common law--and I think, judicial restraint. Why should our justice system be subjected to the acitivism of courts in Strasbourg?
I'll probably write a longer response tomorrow. My exam period just started and I'm now condemned to getting through around 2500 pages of course materials in a pretty short period of time. It's getting late and I already spent way too many hours studying the national procedural autonomy in relation to the actions anullment in front of the European Court of Justice, so I don't feel like writing much more now. But anyways, you have a good point. One that is shared by several legal scholars and authors. Judicial activism of inter- and supranational courts and their limits (or lack theoreof) has been a hot legal topic for years. You are definitely not alone in feeling that way, and I very much understand where you come from. I personally don't think that judicial activism should have no boundaries either. The ECtHR is not democratically elected and still holds real power that can directly affect the member states. But, I also think that its activism and interpretation of the ECHR as a living instrument is somewhat necessary. It's true that this was not intended, but the same goes for several other things. Back in 1950, the drafters of the Convention didn't predict the internet to this scale either. They didn't expect things like highly technological databases retaining a person's fingerprints, retina scans and DNA, nor did they in a million years forsee that marriage between two men / women would ever become a reality. Yet, while they never foresaw these applications, they did realize that things would drastically change. So they did what all good legislators do. They made their provisions sufficiently neutral. They drafted them in broad and general terms that still retained the essence of the right, but also allowed for it to be applied to things that didn't yet exist. And this is not something that only happens with the ECHR or even on an international scale. Every national legislator does the exact same. Law is unique in the sense that you can never fully anticipate what will happen, yet that at the same time, you kind of have to. Because otherwise, the current state of affairs will always be ahead of the laws and result in period of impunity and situations that aren't governed by law. Because of this, laws need to find the fine balance between broad and general enough on the one hand, while still providing enough legal certainty on the other. And that is an extremely difficult task. But it's also a necessary one. Because the alternative is constantly changing and amending the ECHR, which takes a long time and requires the agreement of all parties. This would not only be very slow and costly but what also be completely pointless. "Looks like the UK has made a law that allows for the indefinite detention of any person that may be involved with terrorism or could pose a threat to 'the state' in any way shape or form. Since terrorism was hardly a thing in the 50's and it wasn't decided upon by the drafters, we need to add it in now. UK, are you okay with this falling under our competence so that we can tell you that what you're doing is wrong and shouldn't be allowed? Or are you just going to say this shouldn't be part of the convention and escape any liability?" Yeah... And seeing how I already wrote way too much, I'm just gonna sum the rest up by saying that if the UK denies the Court's primacy, other countries will follow and the ECtHR will probably end up being a void and pointless institution that plays a merely advisory and non-binding role that every single country will ignore when it goes against its government's best interests. The power of the Court lies in its primacy. To repeat basically what I said in the other thread: the court has your back. When something happens and your own legal system, government and judicial branch decide not to recognize what happened because it suits them better, the ECtHR is an objective and independent organ that can set things right. Something that it has done dozens of times. It's obviously impossible to tell what would've happened otherwise, but I am more or less convinced that the British state and courts would've had no issues tossing aside the Court's opinion if it wasn't binding.
7818
« on: May 21, 2015, 02:58:24 PM »
An outright ban on this should not be okay, however. why
Because the deprivation of liberty should be punishment enough. Decades ago, people still thought that it wasn't and that subjecting the prisoners to inhuman conditions was just part of their punishment. Now, it's generally accepted by the legal community that the deprivation of one's liberty is a serious enough punishment on its own. That the only freedom or right that you de facto lose by being put in jail is that of your liberty in the strict sense. Prisoners keep all of their other rights, although they can obviously be limited for good reasons. So while I'm not saying that any prisoner asking for artificial insemination should just be granted their request, I do think that under certain exceptional conditions, they should have the possibility of at least submitting a request and having a shot at making it.
7819
« on: May 21, 2015, 02:50:33 PM »
Is this like a ECtHR checklist of recent cases involving the UK? Because I'd be down for that.  The right of prisoners to have the vote. Not to sound like the filthy ECtHR apologists that I'm sure some of you take me for, but I assume part of the reason you're including this are the ECtHR Hirst and Green v. UK judgments? If so, you should know that the Court does not think prisoners should have an unlimited right to vote. In a similar case in Italia (Scoppola v. Italy), the Court ruled that having restrictions on prisoners' right to vote is most definitely allowed. You just can't have them indiscriminately and apply them as a blanket ban. So while it is perfectly possible to state that prisoners convicted for years are not allowed to vote, you can't just indiscriminately and automatically forbid anyone in prison (which includes those under detention or people who are only sentenced to a few days or weeks in jail) from voting. Either way, yes I do think prisoners have the right to vote within reason. While a murderer sentenced to life in prison should not be able to still have a say in what goes on in the country's politics, I don't think that you should rob someone who just so happens to be in jail at the time of the elections from his chance to issue a vote. The right of prisoners to have children via artificial insemination. Dickson v. UK? I do think that prisoners have this right, but that it is far from absolute and can be limited under several circumstances. An outright ban on this should not be okay, however. The right of individuals who promote hatred and intolerance to not be deported if their original country will not respect their human rights. Othman v. UK and Saadi v. Italy? If there are sufficient grounds to assume that their rights will most definitely be harmed and that they will be subjected to torture, then yes, they should not be deported. This should be judged in facto though. Also, aut dedere aut iudicare. If you don't want to give them over because of the trial in another country, you can put them on trial yourself. I must say that this is a tough one though, especially when people promote hatred and intolerance. Not quite figured it out myself. The right to not be sentenced to life in prison.
Hutchinson v. UK? A life sentence without review should not be possible, no. Not that a life sentence that actually lasts an entire life should not be allowed, but there should still be the possibility of later review and reassessment. So basically, yes, they have all these rights. Although none of them are absolute and can be restricted if proportional, pertinent and providing certain safeguards. It's a case-by-case scenario.
7820
« on: May 21, 2015, 02:24:39 PM »
Yes. As long as they aren't ACTUALLY harming people, they aren't doing anything wrong. Wrong.
They're not necessarily doing anything illegal, but it most certainly is wrong.
Well, that's what I mean. As long as they aren't breaking the law, I'll let it fly. I don't have to like it or agree with it, but I recognize the legality of what they're doing.
They should be deported.
If they're so in love with a Caliphate, for example, why are they afraid to be deported back to where ISIS is creating a caliphate? Dream come true right?
I think it'd teach these people to shut the fuck up.
Can we deport you and your family back to wogistan?
Serious board is no place for these kind of posts. Let's not continue this.
7821
« on: May 21, 2015, 11:18:54 AM »
It's a good game, but definitely not the best military shooter.
7822
« on: May 21, 2015, 11:17:36 AM »
Thank god the mods here are so much better.
Right guys?
No
Damn that's cold.
7823
« on: May 21, 2015, 10:27:52 AM »
Thank god the mods here are so much better.
Right guys?
7824
« on: May 21, 2015, 09:19:56 AM »
actually 19 users online
Everybody's waking up.
We're all equal, but I'm just that tiny bit more equal than others.
So equal that you cant even quote the right post?
>_> Filthy weeb with its trickses.
7825
« on: May 21, 2015, 08:43:14 AM »
actually 19 users online
Everybody's waking up.
We're all equal, but I'm just that tiny bit more equal than others.
7826
« on: May 21, 2015, 07:44:57 AM »
Another one of our brightest lost to Youthdebates.
Damn that website.
7827
« on: May 21, 2015, 07:11:45 AM »
actually 19 users online
Everybody's waking up.
7828
« on: May 21, 2015, 07:11:16 AM »
Who has the rarest Pepe on sep7agon?
7829
« on: May 21, 2015, 04:58:31 AM »
1998.
7830
« on: May 21, 2015, 03:35:39 AM »
Depends on whether or not you have a bank account / credit card linked. If you do, then you'll be able to buy whatever you want without actually needing to have funds in your Microsoft Wallet. If you don't have access to a credit card, then you'll have to buy a redeemable code. You can do this in a ton of stores, or just buy one through Amazon and have them send you the code. Turn on your Xbox (or go to Xbox.com) and select "redeem code". Simple as that.
Pages: 1 ... 259260261 262263 ... 520
|