Quote from: Essessen on December 06, 2015, 07:58:04 PM

Quote from: The Nuke Before Christmas on December 06, 2015, 07:55:17 PM

Quote from: Essessen on December 06, 2015, 07:52:27 PM

Quote from: The Nuke Before Christmas on December 06, 2015, 07:46:09 PM

Quote from: Essessen on December 06, 2015, 07:42:26 PM

You can't have a valid opinion on a concept because you can't experience the practice of the concept.

I love where this is going.

Well I mean until you go around wearing a bloody diaper and absorbent piece of cotton up your giblets which you constantly have to change every few hours, nah you can't really have a valid opinion on it.

I've been in a similar situation, far from gross.

ha
haha

Sure ya have.

Well it was a jockstrap and I couldn't take it or the cotton off for a couple weeks. But the ridiculous amount of blood coming from my genital region  was right on spot.

LOL What the fuck did you do to end up like that?

Anyways but see that's different though. Case you didn't know, it's a different kind of blood. You HAVE TO change out what you're wearing every few hours because the blood is incredibly mucusy and can cause really nasty infections. Not to mention all the other symptoms that come along with it but aside from the upset stomach it can cause, the rest isn't exactly hygienic stuff.

Let's start making a list, add anything you want to it.
-Bleeding from crotch [X]
-Mucusy blood [X]
-Change padding every few hours
-etc. symptoms

So far I've experienced what's been listed to some degree. Please explain why I am so incapable of putting all these different things together from past experiences, and imagine any I might not have, to understand what PMS is like?

Quote from: Essessen on December 06, 2015, 07:42:26 PM

You can't have a valid opinion on a concept because you can't experience the practice of the concept.

I love where this is going.

Well I mean until you go around wearing a bloody diaper and absorbent piece of cotton up your giblets which you constantly have to change every few hours, nah you can't really have a valid opinion on it.

I've been in a similar situation, far from gross.

Quote

I can definitely agree with stopping the ban on gun violence research, although haven't you been posting research facts about it, how does that work out?

There's no general ban on gun violence research, it's just certain institutions and organizations that are banned or strongly discouraged from doing so. Independent researchers, academics, universities, institutions and so on have been entirely free to study these things, which is what I usually cite. Basically, what happened in the early 90's is this. The CDC reseached gun violence, its causes and its effects on society. It found what is now pretty common knowledge and illustrated by tons of other research, being that gun ownership increases the rates of homicides and gun violence, and that easy access to guns contributes to these factors. The NRA, however, did not like this and lobbied so much that Congress ended up banning the CDC from doing any more research. How this is even possible blows my mind. That pro gun groups are so afraid of what an actually independent and objective organization with a lot of resources and access to information will find on the usage of guns that they've literally managed to get your own federal and official public health service from researching something that claims over 30,000 lives a year. Here's a quick graph of what your National Institutes of Health have been doing with their time over the past 40 years because they would lose funding if they actually looked into gun violence more.

Thanks for the response, I never heard about this before.

It found what is now pretty common knowledge and illustrated by tons of other research, being that gun ownership increases the rates of homicides and gun violence, and that easy access to guns contributes to these factors.

What do you think about the argument that this only relates to violent crimes committed with guns, that if you were to eliminate guns from the equation violent crime rates would still be the same or higher? I have to admit, it doesn't really sound like it makes sense that people would just stop being criminals if they didn't have guns.

Quote from: Essessen on December 05, 2015, 09:07:41 PM

Quote from: Flee on December 05, 2015, 07:35:12 PM

I also never compared the US to my own country, nor have I ever advocated a direct implementation of a European style gun control system in the US. No one in the right mind would think that it'd work.

So, what would you suggest for the US?

Tough question. I don't think anyone really knows, simply due to the fact that the US has such a unique gun culture. Additionally, its size, amount of states, cultural differences and issues with gangs are all things to be considered too. Gun control is not a final solution on its own, but it's an absolutely necessary part of it.

The biggest obstacle to progress here is public opinion. Not only are there millions of gun owners reluctant to accept any measures they perceive to be a threat, but the American gun lobby is very real and powerful. A great illustration of this is how the NRA convinced your Congress to outright forbid any sort of research done by the CDC on gun violence simply because they're afraid of what it might find.

Talking about just gun control (and not the other socioeconomic measures that can be taken), the first step is educating people on firearm regulations. People need to know about the benefits that it brings and that it's possible to reconcile using firearms with stricter gun control. Simultaneously, there needs to be a growing, gradual and continuous push for more stringent gun control measures. Small steps are necessary until the public opinion changes.

Public opinion in the US is a finicky thing, because it seems that things always end up in a black and white format(ex. Women should be able to decide what to do with their bodies vs. You're committing infanticide you fucking monster). Conversely to the millions of gun owners and rural folk, you've got city folk and stringent anti-gun lobbies, which plenty of the time either don't understand the thing they're condemning or are lying for their own gain. IIRC, the "ghost gun" senator in California was involved with shipping in firearms illegally into the US. Neither side is prettier than the other.

I can definitely agree with stopping the ban on gun violence research, although haven't you been posting research facts about it, how does that work out?

You aren't mentioning anything about informing about guns, the uses for them, and their context in the law(Which by looking at some of the responses in this thread, some people might need to be made aware that a need for something is not required to have it in US law). These seem equally important as informing about gun control if you want a critically thinking and aware populous.

Russian Chavs

FBI agent plz

Quote from: Essessen on December 05, 2015, 09:08:25 PM

Quote from: Decimator Omega on December 05, 2015, 09:03:29 PM

Quote from: Essessen on December 05, 2015, 09:00:24 PM

Be wary. Ghost has been gone for 3 years. Only God knows what his power level is now.

Make fun of Crasken and that will cripple him.

He'll play you like a damn fiddle

Doubt it. Come on, this is Ghostler that we're talking about here.

Even in defeat, Ghost wins.

Quote from: Essessen on December 05, 2015, 09:00:24 PM

Be wary. Ghost has been gone for 3 years. Only God knows what his power level is now.

Make fun of Crasken and that will cripple him.

He'll play you like a damn fiddle

Be wary. Ghost has been gone for 3 years. Only God knows what his power level is now.

The amusing thing is that /pol/ will probably seriously listen to him.

Would you be implying Ghost is ever wrong about anything?

I'm confused how this is supposed to be a movie if Keanu has only 2 people to kill. Surely they have clones or something?

Quote from: Fruitcake on December 04, 2015, 07:46:47 PM

Quote from: Casper on December 04, 2015, 02:09:55 PM

Mass Effect was really good.
Mass Effect 2 wasn't bad, but all the daddy issues got old real quick.
Mass Effect 3 was a failed abortion that Bioware was too scared to use a coat hanger for.

Naw, Mass Effect 3 was pretty good as well

Except it wasn't at all and I'll dig up my five page paper on why.

Not the 100+ page version?

Quote from: Essessen on December 04, 2015, 05:20:32 PM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on December 04, 2015, 01:20:52 PM

Quote from: Bacon on December 04, 2015, 01:18:28 PM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on December 04, 2015, 01:04:24 PM

Quote from: Bacon on December 04, 2015, 12:49:29 PM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on December 04, 2015, 12:45:54 PM

Quote from: Winy on December 04, 2015, 12:43:25 PM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on December 04, 2015, 12:39:37 PM

Or, we can realize this content model was planned from the beginning and wasn't done to reach a Q4 release.

Scenario 1: What you're saying is false:

Then 343 rushed the game.

Scenario 2: What you're saying is true.

Then they are fucking idiots.

Yes, because in the real world there are only two possible scenarios and if people don't cater to your every need, they are idiots.

You're not seriously suggesting they thought releasing a game with less content than destiny at launch was a 10/10 idea?

When I buy a game, I expect a completed product at launch. Not six months later.

Maybe you should've done research into the game before you bought it then? Not my fault or concern you're assmad.

I guess it's my own fault for assuming 21 multiplayer maps means 21 individual maps. Or for thinking the game would have some incentive to play other than grinding for scout warthogs.

Well, yeah.

After Halo 4, everyone seemed to vow to never again buy into Halo blindly.

Well, here we are at Halo 5, and look what's happened.

Is this when I can finally say I told you so?

About what? I literally told people to not hype themselves up about Halo 5 before the game came out.

I don't think hype is the real issue when there's apparently only 2 custom game modes (slayer and CTF), after 343i taking extra time to work on Forge and its counterparts.

Quote from: Essessen on December 02, 2015, 11:38:32 PM

There's plenty of other telescopes that are bigger

yea, like, what, 3?

I also wonder what they're smoking seeing as the mountains pour down rain almost all the time.

Quote from: Essessen on December 02, 2015, 10:23:18 PM

Please explain how I'm saying that.

If you're not saying that, and your only point is to argue that Verb has personally "banned" a word from his own vocabulary in a certain context, then what exactly was your objection to that? 

Because it sounds to me like you're just playing wordgames now.  Something along the lines of banning=bad (for certain definitions of banning) and Verb is banning things (for a certain definition of banning).

Is it similarly wrong of Bob to have "banned" the personal consumption of apples?

I really don't give a shit at this point, but Bob's a dumb fucking cunt for not eating apples. He should defenstrate himself beyond the point of death.