Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 27, 2014, 01:01:24 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on September 27, 2014, 12:57:05 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 27, 2014, 12:53:16 PM

if he was buggering around with an unboxed air rifle then it's not quite just shooting someone for buying Iced Tea <.<

Yeah, that's directly Walmart's fault. It's not like he unboxed it himself, it was sitting in plain sight on the shelf. And it wasn't like it was loaded or anything...

Yeah, they are certainly idiots for having it out like that.

And that's also true, but police are trained to treat all guns as loaded/lethal as far as I know. Hence why kids with toy guns and no common sense occasionally get shot down for pointing it at the police.
I think something similar happened here in britbongistan a while back, some idiotic kid pointing a toy pistol at the police and he got BTFO by them. Could have been the USA though, it was a while ago <.<

See, and that's dumb. When you become a police officer, you take the risk that you might die. Your job is to protect and serve, and shooting anyone that's holding a gun-looking object on sight is going to hurt a lot more innocents than criminals in the long run. Even so, you see a dangerous-looking man with a gun? Don't go for the head shot. Don't hit him in the neck. Aim for the leg, or the arm.

I suppose, I have seen reasonable explanations for why they do though <.<
Generally to do with actually hitting the target, centre of mass and all that.

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 27, 2014, 12:53:16 PM

if he was buggering around with an unboxed air rifle then it's not quite just shooting someone for buying Iced Tea <.<

Yeah, that's directly Walmart's fault. It's not like he unboxed it himself, it was sitting in plain sight on the shelf. And it wasn't like it was loaded or anything...

Yeah, they are certainly idiots for having it out like that.

And that's also true, but police are trained to treat all guns as loaded/lethal as far as I know. Hence why kids with toy guns and no common sense occasionally get shot down for pointing it at the police.
I think something similar happened here in britbongistan a while back, some idiotic kid pointing a toy pistol at the police and he got BTFO by them. Could have been the USA though, it was a while ago <.<

Right this settles it.

When I've moved in I'm definitely buying some more Xbl, BF3 and BC2 call to me <_<

Why people insist on being so prideful instead of just saying "I see, I guess I was wrong.", I have no idea. Especially when he wasn't being rude.

I would say this bit puzzles me but it really doesn't.

It's very rare to see someone admit they were wrong or that they made a mistake online, but that applies to the real world too >.>

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 27, 2014, 11:57:31 AM

Quote from: Gatsby on September 27, 2014, 11:40:21 AM

Quote from: RustingFloor on September 27, 2014, 11:36:40 AM

Quote from: Gatsby on September 27, 2014, 11:33:54 AM

Wait so the schools want to teach American nationalism and disregard the areas where America did bad shit. And the students are protesting against it??

Yes.

Then I fully support them. Here in the UK we too are only taught in History about the wonderful things the British did. Our curriculum fails to mention all the bad. I don't really like nationalism, it helps uniting the people of one country together but not the world.

I wouldn't say that it whitewashes history for the empire, it was more just omitted entirely from the curriculum I studied other than colouring in the countries we used to own in year 6...

We in the north never even get taught anything about the British empire. We're taught the jews and nothing but the jews in WWII, the battle of Hastings, that franz ferdinand got killed by a bunch of nationalists, the state of medicine from the Roman era to 1941, the history of the Durham steelworks and all about US westward expansion. Out of that The battle of Hastings and the history of the Durham steel works is the only legitimate British history I have experienced since beginning school to completing GCSE history.

That's pretty much the same as what I did in history, although substitute the American west and Durham steel for the Suffragettes, Liberal Reforms and Treaty of Versailles. And a focus on Hitler's rise to power too.

The only bits to do with the empire I actually remember doing were the colouring in the countries thing in middle school and briefly talking about it in terms of WW1.

Oh and the Tudors. The fucking Tudors I must have done about 7 times throughout school. God that was boring.

<_<

plsdienoh8
sorrynotsorry

I used the L85 mostly but to see what kind of cheese the M16 was, I played with it for about a week.
8 Service stars in a few days and I put it down, it was just utter grape-soda on everything that moved. If retards can massacre people with it then it's just downright unfair to put it in the hands of a shitbucket >_>

G3a3 was my waifu anyway, if they put that back in then I could tolerate them giving the scrublets their m16.

You don't see this shit in CoD or Arma.

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 27, 2014, 07:15:23 AM

Of the two? Big.

Preferably? Basically how the UK is now in terms of size/structure, maybe trim some of the really useless agencies but not many >.>

The UK government is like a dying whale with its side split open and pouring blood into the ocean at a gallon every few seconds. It is disgustingly bad.

It's certainly not perfect, and shit needs fixing but the framework is sound enough.

In case three, the person was bored and wanted to see what it would be like to kill someone.
3 - Chances are that this person is a Psychopath*, I'll come back to this one in a moment.

EDIT: Whoops forgot the psychopath bit. I'll do that in a separate comment.

Okey dokey

Disclaimer - Not all psychopaths are murderers, not all murderers are psychopaths. etc etc etc.

So, person three is bored and decides to kill someone to alleviate this.

A psychiatric examination indicates that this person indeed 'suffers' from Psychopathy, so they feel no regret or empathy for their victim. They killed them for the rush and are likely to kill again.

Are they morally responsible?

Well this is a harder question to answer, because Psychopathy isn't exactly a conclusively studied disorder. The root causes vary slightly and the severity is something of a spectrum.

But for the example, this individual was born as a Psychopath.

Are they to blame for being a psychopath? Not at all, that was out of their control.
Are they to blame for their actions that result from being a psychopath? Here is where it becomes a grey area.

On the one hand you can argue that such behaviour is a direct result of their condition and on the other you could argue that it doesn't completely obscure mental judgement and that it is still possible to exercise restraint over 'the urge to kill'. I'm not as well read on it as Meta I suspect, so he might like to take this further >.>

And I'm a little too tired to do this bit properly, but I hope the previous comment was worth reading.

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 27, 2014, 06:37:04 AM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on September 27, 2014, 02:08:38 AM

Of course they are.

YouTube

Is that your final answer?

*walks in holding bags of groceries*
.......why is there a game show in my house?

Spoiler

They make choices like everyone else. DUH they are responsible!

Good shrek have mercy.

Alrighty, well let's do this properly rather than with rustling and le raeg feces.

Do you know/understand the concept of Compos Mentis?
Basically being of sound mind, I might not be using it 100% correctly in a legal sense but the term and the meaning is the point here. Being in control of your mental faculties, i.e not having your mind warped and twisted into thinking something abnormal.

I'll give a few examples.

A seemingly normal person living their life, suddenly decides to kill someone. Are they morally responsible for their actions? Well, first you have to figure out why they did it.

In case one, the person does it to cover up a secret that they don't want revealing.
In case two, the person has been hearing voices, hallucinating and has been convinced that the person they just killed was out to get them.
In case three, the person was bored and wanted to see what it would be like to kill someone.

1 - Morally responsible, guilty and is a piece of shit.
2 - Likely to be suffering from Acute Schizophrenia, this removes the choice from their actions as they are not made under proper circumstances but under a warped and flawed set of thinking borne of intensive fear.
3 - Chances are that this person is a Psychopath*, I'll come back to this one in a moment.

The reason the Schizophrenic is not morally responsible or fully legally responsible is because their mind is not right. They are ill and instead of receiving the treatment they needed, they slipped under the radar and ended up killing someone.
Do you blame a cancer patient for dying of cancer? Are they morally responsible for the tumour?

Of course they aren't, they can't help it if they are genetically predisposed to such a condition/ailment. The same applies to many people with severe mental illness, they don't choose to go crazy and kill someone - Their mental imbalances are out of their control and to assign moral responsibility and thus guilt to them for their subsequent actions is just downright wrong.

By no means is what they did alright, but it isn't their fault that they are ill. So instead of punishment for their 'crime' they will end up sectioned to a psychiatric hospital until they it is determined that they are no longer a threat to the public or themselves.

The tl;dr is that you cannot blame people for circumstances that are out of their control, mental illness falls under this category.

That being said, severity plays into this. Someone with an eating disorder murdering someone over 'normal' circumstances doesn't give them a get out of jail free card. The situation plays a very important role in determining responsibility.

But as a rule of thumb, Mentally ill people are not morally responsible for their actions as they are not in direct control of what they do.

EDIT: Whoops forgot the psychopath bit. I'll do that in a separate comment.

They are still fired up from all that kebab removal, but with no more kebabs to remove they put their passions into be of making games.

Of the two? Big.

Preferably? Basically how the UK is now in terms of size/structure, maybe trim some of the really useless agencies but not many >.>

Of course they are.

Is that your final answer?

Regarding following offers
Economic Alliance - China
(Received warmly but wishes to know terms of treaty)
Economic Alliance - Canada
(Received warmly but wishes to know terms of treaty)
Not-Nato-but-totally-Nato Alliance offer - USA/NAA
Considered, pending discussion with partner in the Euroballing Union, if all goes with with Reichmaster Das then it is likely approved. Also awaiting details on other treaties.

+++Britain AFK for the night+++

I wanted Canada, and well i am left out, so what do i choose?
The western Provinces?

[Oh hey risay It's good to have you!]