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 ... 282930 3132 ... 520
871
« on: March 05, 2018, 05:58:42 AM »
That and they boot out old users
"Look at our most popular game ever this year! And look, everyone's happy on our official forums, even offtopic!"
"Criticisms of the game? Only that we have none from our loyal fanbase*!  "
*that have bought Destiny 3 GOTY-NODLC Limited Edition
-Activision, Bungie.
 "You sure everything's okay, Bungie?" -"Haha yeah don't worry about it just play our next DLC haha it's going to be great BECOME LEGEND haha" (screams of constructive criticism and banned veteran forum members are heard faintly behind the door)
872
« on: March 05, 2018, 05:41:06 AM »
He thought he was raped. That probably is because he was raped.
873
« on: March 04, 2018, 06:38:33 PM »
I should check Sapphire out again and see what it's all about. I have an account there still. I got invited to join the group back in the B.old days and left the same day I joined because of how horrible it was (apologies if anyone here takes offense to that but it really did fucking suck) which I believe landed me on some blacklist. Memories, memories.
874
« on: March 03, 2018, 01:21:40 PM »
Yeah, he left. Dude has some personal issues with his life and career.
875
« on: March 03, 2018, 01:17:53 PM »
There's obviously no rules on what you can or can't do on a resume (aside from applying for say certain governmental positions) but I'd advise against it. Just put on there what honors you got and the exact percentage or number.
876
« on: March 03, 2018, 07:19:32 AM »
So this is to make yourself more feminine? If so, science says not to take too much of the cyproterone.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15532739.2017.1290566?journalCode=wijt20
On an unrelated note, I had no idea this journal existed.
I'm taking a 50mg dose until my t levels are nuked or my testes atrophy.
Cypro can be taken in constantly shrinking doses, going as low as 12.5mg.
Alright man. Good luck, I hope you get out of this what you're looking for.
877
« on: March 03, 2018, 07:04:26 AM »
Not really getting the hype.
878
« on: March 02, 2018, 07:39:37 PM »
Second, RAND has just concluded another massive and lengthy study on the topic of gun control.
Passing an assault weapons ban might prevent 170 mass shooting deaths a year in the US, experts who support gun control estimate.
Gotta say, fam, that's way too low for me to support any kind of legislation on.
Yeah, it's just an estimate. The study itself mentions that it's likely to be higher but they're being conservative in their predictions and are refraining from making wild assumptions when there's no or not much supporting evidence, which I can definitely appreciate. I don't think this should really be used to just pass any specific policy, but it does help. The tool on their website lets you perform impact assessments from different kinds of regulations. If you combine the stricter gun control rules they looked at, they expect firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and incidental gun killings to drop by almost half, other violent crime by 25%, and mass shootings by over 40%, as well as other beneficial effects. I'm not saying this to try and change your mind, but I think you need to look at the cumulative effects of the entire package or a combination of parts thereof rather than what one specific policy would do for already a relatively rare type of gun killing. Perhaps those 170 deaths won't do it for you, but the 6,000 murder victims, the general violent crime enabled by firearms, the suicide rates and whatnot might.
879
« on: March 02, 2018, 01:36:11 PM »
First things first, Donny is actually backing some gun control. Of course, he's as vague as always and doesn't say much of substance, but props to him for at least trying and making comments against the NRA. NY Times - Trump Stuns Lawmakers With Seeming Embrace of Comprehensive Gun Control WASHINGTON — President Trump stunned Republicans on live television Wednesday by embracing gun control and urging a group of lawmakers at the White House to resurrect gun safety legislation that has been opposed for years by the powerful National Rifle Association and the vast majority of his party.
In a remarkable meeting, the president veered wildly from the N.R.A. playbook in front of giddy Democrats and stone-faced Republicans. He called for comprehensive gun control legislation that would expand background checks to weapons purchased at gun shows and on the internet, keep guns from mentally ill people, secure schools and restrict gun sales for some young adults. He even suggested a conversation on an assault weapons ban.
At one point, Mr. Trump suggested that law enforcement authorities should have the power to seize guns from mentally ill people or others who could present a danger without first going to court. “I like taking the guns early,” he said, adding, “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”
The declarations prompted a frantic series of calls from N.R.A. lobbyists to their allies on Capitol Hill and a statement from the group calling the ideas that Mr. Trump expressed “bad policy.” Republican lawmakers suggested to reporters that they remained opposed to gun control measures. Not only has this left his subreddit temporarily in shambles (dozens of T_D veterans have been banned just for quoting what Trump said but remember guys, it's the leftists who are emotional snowflakes and can't deal with facts over feelings or something), but it's amazing how the same people supporting him now would've called for little less than public lynchings had Obama ever said that guns should just be taken when seemingly a good idea to the police involved. That said though, bad Donny for bailing on due process. Second, RAND has just concluded another massive and lengthy study on the topic of gun control. Passing an assault weapons ban might prevent 170 mass shooting deaths a year in the US, experts who support gun control estimate. Passing a universal background check law could prevent 1,100 gun homicides each year. Raising the age limit for buying firearms could prevent 1,600 homicides and suicides.
These are some of the new estimates in a groundbreaking study of the potential impact of American gun control laws. The non-partisan analysis, based on a review of existing gun policy research and a survey of the best guesses of both gun rights and gun control experts, was conducted by the Rand Corporation, which spent two years and more than $1m on the project. The research is further explained here, but it can basically be summed up as "many types of gun control work, they're proven to be effective at saving lives and reducing crime, and it would do a lot of good if it would be expanded in the US". It also states something that I've been saying for years, namely that there's a dire need for a lot more research on American gun violence and the impact of gun control rules, as much is still unknown and there isn't a lot of evidence either way when it comes to some aspects of it. Unfortunately, there still exist budgetary restrictions on what some of the best equipped institutions like the CDC can do in terms of gun research (for those who don't know, the CDC came out with some very factual reporting in the 90's but because it spelled bad news for the gun lobby they've since been limited from researching gun violence because that's the right thing to do or something), so that's a pretty big shame. This isn't very surprising as the amount of evidence in favor of this has been growing for years, but it's always interesting to see these kinds of huge studies from excellent institutions confirm it even more.
881
« on: March 01, 2018, 05:53:55 PM »
My opinion isn't going to be changed by any discussion here. Sorry if I suck at discussing things. I just lose interest once I realize no one's opinions are going to change.
I don't think you suck at discussing things.  And for what it's worth, I'm very willing to change my opinion provided that the arguments and evidence are strong enough.
882
« on: March 01, 2018, 03:02:11 PM »
The main issue with shootings is that American mental health care is an absolute fucking joke. If the government would get rid of some useless bureaus to make room for an increased mental health care budget we could probably solve the mass shooting issue without even needing gun control.
But mass shootings only account for a tiny portion of all US gun deaths and there's a lot of research arguing that "mental health(care)" is a very poor scapegoat when it comes to "normal" gun violence.
883
« on: March 01, 2018, 03:00:22 PM »
Rights are not something that can be amended. We are entitled by them by our own existence. you see no danger or folly in allowing men who lived two and a half centuries ago tell you what your basic rights are
They did pretty well if you ask me. They didn't cover everything, but I'm glad what they did cover is law.
i agree, that's why amendment 2 is the only one i have a serious problem with
all in all, the constitution is pretty awesome, but i'm not gonna sit here and pretend it's the word of god or anything, especially when it needed to be fixed up 27 times over the course of 200 years
I don't follow this reasoning either. It's easy to say that the bill of rights just affirms the existence of these fundamental and natural rights (if there even is such a thing, but that's a whole other debate), but I've never seen anything to really substantiate this. The US Constitution and bill of rights are not unique. They were not really the first, they're not the ones that followed the most debate and they're definitely not the most comprehensive or detailed. Many of the rights that we consider basic right now (such as privacy) are not even part of it and have retroactively been retconned to be interpreted as part of another clause. There's dozens of constitutions and treaties on human rights out there and many of them have been more influential or provide protections that the American one does not, yet why is this one somehow correct despite not a single other constitution in the world mentioning the right to firearms "without infringement"? Seems like a very big leap to make.
If we give up on the concept of basic human rights then I think the world will start heading down the shitter a whole lot quicker. Guns aren't going anywhere in the U.S. If they do, we're fucked. If they don't, we'll still be fucked, but It'll take a little while longer. Nations have a lifespan. Once the guns are gone, then the real fuckery begins.
I'm really confused how you got that from my post. I don't think we should give up on the concept of basic human rights. I'm a strong supporter of human rights and most of my job revolves around protecting them. My point is just that gun ownership isn't or shouldn't be one, and that there's a lot of human rights instruments out there that are more comprehensive, influential and in my opinion better than the US Bill of Rights, yet don't include firearm ownership. You keep making a semi slippery slope case that this somehow results in all rights being taken away yet offer no evidence or anything to substantiate it. Much of what you say also kind of comes across as empty. You ignored my previous post and just present these very general and vague talking points almost. You frame this as some black/white situation where "evil is real" and that everything good will perish to bad guys if we don't take action, yet guns aren't just misused by "evil" people who spent their days thinking about breaking all possible laws and harming people. Guns are misused by your "law abiding gun owner" who accidentally shoots someone. The good family man down the street who gets drunk and shoots his wife in an argument. The "good guy with a gun" who gets into a traffic rage incident at a drive-tru and pulls his gun on someone. These people aren't pure evil, and you're really misrepresenting the situation in a naive way. I'm also very interested in any evidence backing up that guns are somehow holding society together a bit longer and that we're all fucked without them.
884
« on: March 01, 2018, 02:47:08 PM »
Thanks to the genius idea that was Fast and Furious which gave drug cartels in Mexico thousands of military-grade weapons, Mexico may never be free from the government corruption and murders.
Yeah, not really. Fast and Furious involved the sale of "only" 2,000 weapons, about half of which have since been recovered. Meanwhile, several hundreds of thousands of guns (with some estimates even suggesting 2000 a day) cross the border into Mexico every year. Fast and Furious is a miniscule drop in the ocean of illegal guns that flood Mexico as a result of America's gun policies.
885
« on: March 01, 2018, 02:36:05 PM »
Rights are not something that can be amended. We are entitled by them by our own existence. you see no danger or folly in allowing men who lived two and a half centuries ago tell you what your basic rights are
They did pretty well if you ask me. They didn't cover everything, but I'm glad what they did cover is law.
i agree, that's why amendment 2 is the only one i have a serious problem with
all in all, the constitution is pretty awesome, but i'm not gonna sit here and pretend it's the word of god or anything, especially when it needed to be fixed up 27 times over the course of 200 years
I don't follow this reasoning either. It's easy to say that the bill of rights just affirms the existence of these fundamental and natural rights (if there even is such a thing, but that's a whole other debate), but I've never seen anything to really substantiate this. The US Constitution and bill of rights are not unique. They were not really the first, they're not the ones that followed the most debate and they're definitely not the most comprehensive or detailed. Many of the rights that we consider basic right now (such as privacy) are not even part of it and have retroactively been retconned to be interpreted as part of another clause. There's dozens of constitutions and treaties on human rights out there and many of them have been more influential or provide protections that the American one does not, yet why is this one somehow correct despite not a single other constitution in the world mentioning the right to firearms "without infringement"? Seems like a very big leap to make.
886
« on: March 01, 2018, 02:04:28 PM »
Just so you know, but you do realize that it's a fact that it's the USA's loose gun regulations that directly contribute to Mexico's gun crime and play a significant role in supporting the power of the cartels, right? This has been known for years.
That wasn't my point, but I am aware of it. The cartels have also been known to manufacture their own weapons as well. They certainly have the financial resources to do so. I think by legalizing gun ownership, common folk in Mexico would be more able to openly defend themselves against the cartels. It would be bloody, but it would be a fight and not the rape of the citizenry like it is now.
I know it wasn't your point. I'm just making clear that "removing gun control regulations is the solution to a problem that is for a large part directly caused by the lack of strict gun control laws a little to the North" isn't necessarily an argument without flaws. Cartel-made weapons are either crude, unreliable and inaccurate or made with parts imported from the US. And whether legalization would help is not something I think anyone can predict. The Mexican government doesn't have the resources to make this happen responsibly and its citizens are largely poor without a lot of means to arm and train themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if the legalization would only make it easier for the gangs to arm themselves.
887
« on: March 01, 2018, 01:51:39 PM »
i mean ultimately if i had a button that destroyed all guns and prevented anything similar from ever being created or used again, then i would press it instantly
in fact, i'd smash wayne lapierre's face against it
that's my ideal, no guns whatsoever, fuck you
never gonna happen though, so i have to try to discuss reality
I think banning a simple mechanical concept would be nigh impossible. Even regulating it is exceedingly difficult. You can actually easily manufacture a submachine gun, from materials you can buy at a hardware store (P.A. Luty). The law can only do so much to control what people do in their own homes.
"Easily". >"viewers should not assume that these homemade firearms are easy to produce" >"they remain quite sophisticated pieces of engineering and true craft-produced weapons" >"they require considerably skill to replicate" >"manufacturers must also obtain quantities of suitable ammunition" >"criminals in the UK do not appear to have made any great use of them" http://armamentresearch.com/pa-luty-9mm-submachine-guns/Home-made firearms are at this point still a very poor argument against regulations.
888
« on: March 01, 2018, 01:48:40 PM »
In a dangerous world, is the right to arm oneself a basic human right? Would it not make sense that a man should be able to arm himself equally as well as those who would do him and his family harm, regardless if those people respect the law? Should there be limitations to how well someone can arm themselves? If the items being limited are already exceedingly simple, common and available, would this make any difference to those with no regard for the law?
I'd consider self defense a basic human right, but not the entitlement to a specific method of doing so. No, it doesn't make sense. Yes, there should be limitations. Yes, it would and does make a difference.
Care to elaborate on specifically what makes a difference? And how it doesn't make sense? So I can only defend myself in a specific way? Basic human rights conform to the law?
I was just going over your questions in order. It's gun regulations that can and do make a difference. I just made a post explaining this in the Serious thread. What you said doesn't make all that much sense because you're ignoring the fact that you'd also supply "the bad guys" with more and more ways of harming your family in a battle you can't win. And I didn't say anything about basic rights conforming to the law. I'm saying that I don't think think that owning guns is a basic human right.
I don't think adding regulations to devices that are already in the hands of criminals will affect them much at all, so not adding the regulations wouldn't make a difference either. The ability to arm oneself covers more than just guns in my mind.
EDIT: When I ask what regulations, I meant specific laws.
Of course there's no laws that will take away the guns from those who already have them, but the laws might have prevented them from obtaining them in the first place. What you're doing now is scooping water out of a sinking boat without plugging the leak. Every year, thousands of guns belonging to criminals are confiscated, destroyed or lost. This is obviously good news, but it doesn't accomplish much when at the same time hundreds of thousands guns fall in criminal hands in part due to the (lack of) regulations.
889
« on: March 01, 2018, 01:24:13 PM »
Just so you know, but you do realize that it's a fact that it's the USA's loose gun regulations that directly contribute to Mexico's gun crime and play a significant role in supporting the power of the cartels, right? This has been known for years.
890
« on: March 01, 2018, 01:15:31 PM »
In a dangerous world, is the right to arm oneself a basic human right? Would it not make sense that a man should be able to arm himself equally as well as those who would do him and his family harm, regardless if those people respect the law? Should there be limitations to how well someone can arm themselves? If the items being limited are already exceedingly simple, common and available, would this make any difference to those with no regard for the law?
I'd consider self defense a basic human right, but not the entitlement to a specific method of doing so. No, it doesn't make sense. Yes, there should be limitations. Yes, it would and does make a difference.
Care to elaborate on specifically what makes a difference? And how it doesn't make sense? So I can only defend myself in a specific way? Basic human rights conform to the law?
I was just going over your questions in order. It's gun regulations that can and do make a difference. I just made a post explaining this in the Serious thread. What you said doesn't make all that much sense because you're ignoring the fact that you'd also supply "the bad guys" with more and more ways of harming your family in a battle you can't win. And I didn't say anything about basic rights conforming to the law. I'm saying that I don't think think that owning guns is a basic human right.
891
« on: March 01, 2018, 12:52:58 PM »
In a dangerous world, is the right to arm oneself a basic human right? Would it not make sense that a man should be able to arm himself equally as well as those who would do him and his family harm, regardless if those people respect the law? Should there be limitations to how well someone can arm themselves? If the items being limited are already exceedingly simple, common and available, would this make any difference to those with no regard for the law?
I'd consider self defense a basic human right, but not the entitlement to a specific method of doing so. No, it doesn't make sense. Yes, there should be limitations. Yes, it would and does make a difference.
892
« on: March 01, 2018, 12:40:13 PM »
"why adopt gun control rules when criminals just buy their guns illegally from the black market"
just to clarify, this is not the argument i'm making, and i made the same point towards deci in the other thread
i figured my stance on gun control has been made clear enough in the past that i wouldn't need to clarify, but i support gun control to the extent that even most leftists might consider draconian
all i'm saying here is that it's still a two-way street; the black market will always exist, yes, but i'm coming at it from the perspective of someone who's more in line with your thinking, not deci's thinking
deci seems to be hung-up on the notion that any degree of gun control is pointless because it's not 100% effective, when, like you said, perfect efficacy is not what we're looking for
it's minimization
Yeah, I realized that when I read the "obviously" so I turned it into a general post aimed at anyone who does think that.
893
« on: March 01, 2018, 12:22:32 PM »
So. First let me address the elephant in the room for 2 media outlets that I find disturbing for stretching the truth and overall being currupt in general. Fuck CNN and fuck The Guardian. I can't trust either of them The gun debate aside, can you explain this? The Guardian is a pretty reputable newspaper. It's won several awards for its reporting and operates under a special trust that guarantees that its profits are reinvested into the actual journalism rather than diverted to corporate shareholders. The few mistakes I know they've made didn't have much to do with corruption or lies and were followed by retractions and apologies. They're considered left-leaning centrist and pretty neutral / objective. I've asked you this before and despite you calling newspapers like this corrupt, untrustworthy and all sorts of things, I've never seen you actually provide a better alternative or prove your point.
894
« on: March 01, 2018, 11:45:00 AM »
People who will want to commit a mass shooting will still do it, and it will happen a lot more than it does now. its called the flea market and the black market. No background checks, no test. Just pay cash, and you own a fucking AR-15 or AK47 or hell even a .22 Glock, illegally, and its incredibly easy to do if you have no guilty conscience or morals )
The majority of these young shooters don't strike me as resourceful enough to do this.
and it wouldn't be more or less difficult to do with or without a gun ban, or with added background checks
the option to purchase illegal weapons on the black market will always be there regardless of what solutions we implement
obviously
Just an FYI for anyone who would think this way: There's plenty of things up still for debate in the gun control discussion, but it's well known that the legal market directly fuels the illegal trade of firearms. All these illegal guns were once legal. There's no underground criminal factories making Glocks and S&W's, and the ones that are custom made are usually ineffective, inaccurate and not very reliable. Straw purchases, gun theft and social contacts are the main ways legal guns become illegal, and they're all highly facilitated by lower gun control standards. You're of course right in saying that the black market will always be there. But the point of any (criminal) law is to minimize, not necessarily eliminate completely. We don't just abandon traffic lights and speed limits because there's always going to people who drive too fast or ignore red lights. A policy is not only successful when it works 100% of the time and stops every single person from misbehaving ever. Even if there's still people speeding and ignoring lights, they probably don't do so always and millions of others do abide by the law as a result of which thousands of lives are still saved. This isn't much different. The black market will always be there, but basic rules of economics still apply there. Stricter regulations, more background checks, longer waiting periods, better enforcement and prosecution of gun crimes, more restrictions on ownership and sales overall... All of those things affect the supply of illegal guns which in turn drives up prices and makes them more difficult to come by. Yes, some people will still be resourceful, wealthy and determined enough to overcome this. But the more difficult you make something, the fewer people will actually do it. And this isn't just a theory. It's observable too. There's a reason why illegal guns are so much more expensive and difficult to come by in Europe than in the US, and why there's so much more gun crime in the US as well. A country where this well observable is Australia. After adopting much stricter gun control rules, the price of illegal guns skyrocketed due to their supply being restricted. As a result, many criminals couldn't even afford firearms and many others had to resort to sharing a single handgun between a whole bunch of them. Of course, the US and Australia aren't identical, but the argument that "why adopt gun control rules when criminals just buy their guns illegally from the black market" really doesn't hold any weight and presumes that the legal and illegal markets exist in separate vacuums from each other - something which anyone with any knowledge of criminology and criminal law will tell you is completely wrong.
895
« on: March 01, 2018, 11:13:06 AM »
we need to lower our drinking age to 18 like the rest of the developed world.
>not 16 for light alcohols ho ho ho
896
« on: February 28, 2018, 01:58:10 PM »
Good luck man. You know where to find me if need be.
897
« on: February 28, 2018, 01:30:13 PM »
I couldn’t imagine why Russia would give a shit about either.
This. They honestly don't care about Western rights or subverting them. If anything, they help them doing what they do now. They're just looking for information and opportunities to weaken others.
898
« on: February 28, 2018, 06:27:12 AM »
I really don't believe in this Russian conspiracy. However, I'll listen to people who do. What are they targeting, what seems to be their goal(s) and what damage (if any) have they done already?
It's hardly a conspiracy theory with the large amounts of evidence behind it. They're targeting other major powers like the EU and US. Their goal is to grow existing divides, create discord / civil unrest, and influence the outcome of elections, votes and all sorts of events. Ultimately they're looking to gather information and weaken their opponents any way they can. The damage they've done is impossible to quanitfy and no one can say with certainty if they had a deciding role to play in a certain event. But I think it's likely that they have exerted considerably amounts of influence and caused a significant amount of damage in the US 2016 elections, the Brexit vote, the Catalan independence feud and so forth.
899
« on: February 28, 2018, 06:17:07 AM »
Almost thought this was going to be a very different kind of big bad toy store.
900
« on: February 28, 2018, 05:43:11 AM »
enemy territory quake wars 2 / quake 5.
ET > Quake Wars though. And QUAKE CHAMPIONS BABY
Pages: 1 ... 282930 3132 ... 520
|
Show Posts