Yes, otherwise I get splinters from the wood or cold feet from the stone flooring.

While I'd never deny that there is sexism in certain games, I would argue that they rarely influence someone in the real world, and in most cases it comes down to personal choice (I can, and do play GTA and FNV without interacting with the prostitutes, and the benefits these added features give is not needed to complete the game, rather a negligible advantage) or because it's a useful mechanic in-game (The Saboteur's kiss-the-girl-to-evade-capture is akin to jumping in a haystack in Assassin's Creed. Why they didn't just do that, is a good question). Just like violent video games don't make me go out and kill people, sexualisation in games doesn't make me a misogynist, or even wish to take part in these "features" if given the choice.

I'm not defending it (most of that stuff makes me uncomfortable while playing), I just don't believe it translates into real life.

Saying everything like I was President of the Republic of Dave.

Just some Fallout/Sep7 themed nameplates. Feel free to use.

http://imgur.com/gallery/5ImDS/new

My Dad usually ends up sleeping in the middle, or not knowing what the fuck is going on, but watching anyway (E.g. Inception).

I'm happy with what I get compared to what I give them (i.e. Amazon knowing my address  and buying history so they can deliver my shit). That said, the EU has a bit more emphasis on privacy rights so I may have less to worry about (GCHQ be damned).

There's never going to be a point where I'm going to be retroactively charged for a  retarded crime created in the future (e.g. "It's illegal to own CD's", or something), so I have little to worry about. Should I ever decide to do something that is currently illegal and currently enforced, I'll start going anon like any other rational person would.

If it were the case that products were overstepping on what I give them without warning or my consent, then I'd make a fuss about it (once I figured out/they were found out), but they don't... so I don't worry.

Government spying and the like are a whole other matter.

Quote from: SuperIrish on August 28, 2015, 10:24:09 AM

-To enforce the above, sale and purchase of guns would be through licensed and vetted dealers only, who would request your gun card before a purchase can be accepted. To remove guns from the market, sale of guns to said dealers would be simple, appropriate money given for the gun and no questions asked, regardless of having a gun card or legality of the gun being sold. Trade-ins would still require a valid card however.

You're going to need a national registry for this to work, which is explicitly made illegal by the FOPA '86.

Quote

-Limit on how many guns you can own, by category and caliber. 1 pistol, shotgun(pump-action/double-barrel), rifle (bolt-action) per person. You could get a Deagle .50 no problem, but don't expect any caliber for your other guns past .22/(whatever gauge shot is small, 20ga+ or something). This would be more strict in densely populated areas and more lenient in the vast emptinesses of Alaska where guns are more for personal defense from wild animals than wild people. Collectors can have more guns, but any amount above the allowed amount have to be decomissioned.

One rifle per person? So I have to shoot small game with the 7mm or 30.06 I'd have for deer and not a .22lr like a sane person?

Quote

-Straight-up ban of anything automatic and semi automatic (barring pistols)

Why are we leaving semi-auto pistols alone? They're far more prevalent and used in shootings more than  semi-automatic rifles.

All valid criticisms, although to be fair I didn't know having a national registry was illegal (why is that in this case? Something to do with the constitution?), and for the pistol thing I doubt the American people would accept something that far given y'know, guns being pretty rooted in American culture.

Quote from: SuperIrish on August 28, 2015, 10:27:32 AM

Bet whe?

Well et sere dees seend fenny den't yee thenk led?

Ecteelle, E egree.

Hehehehe

Not knowing any gun-culture, nor having much exposure to guns, so bear with me here.

-Psychological checks and training for first-time buyers, with recurring pysch. checks every 5-10 years. Succesful applicants recieve a "gun-card" to prove their mental capacity and respect for weapons.

-Cooldown period between purchase and having the gun in your posession. Nothing larger than a week, though this would be on top of any time needed for a psych. check.

-To enforce the above, sale and purchase of guns would be through licensed and vetted dealers only, who would request your gun card before a purchase can be accepted. To remove guns from the market, sale of guns to said dealers would be simple, appropriate money given for the gun and no questions asked, regardless of having a gun card or legality of the gun being sold. Trade-ins would still require a valid card however.

-Limit on how many guns you can own, by category and caliber. 1 pistol, shotgun(pump-action/double-barrel), rifle (bolt-action) per person. You could get a Deagle .50 no problem, but don't expect any caliber for your other guns past .22/(whatever gauge shot is small, 20ga+ or something). This would be more strict in densely populated areas and more lenient in the vast emptinesses of Alaska where guns are more for personal defense from wild animals than wild people. Collectors can have more guns, but any amount above the allowed amount have to be decomissioned.

-Bullet/shot types are limited to the basics, no hollow points, armour piercing, "dragons breath" and the like. Non-lethal rounds are free from this, i.e. plastic/rubber bullets, rock-salt and pouch shots, etc.

-Straight-up ban of anything automatic and semi automatic (barring pistols)

None of these are perfect and won't stop gun crime outright, but I'm pretty sure it would reduce it.

Barely any.

Eels, live at Albert Hall

...well, the CD of that, anyway.

Quote from: SuperIrish on August 27, 2015, 06:27:43 PM

Oh for crying out loud.

They really should focus more on sexual inequalities rather than arguing over what the acronym should be. This constant bickering over what the terms should be and general small-time shit is why people are slow to take the legitimate movement seriously.

I guess they've a history of making a fuss over petty shit don't they?

This is wider thing in general, the whole thing just irritates me at times. Loaf has a point which I concede though. Some do a good job, some do a shit "job".

Rugby in Spring (rainy and muddy), cross-country in Winter (cold af with shorts made compulsory), and football in Summer where the pent-up kids would get mad if you got the ball off them.

Good times. Eh, honestly it wasn't my favourite lesson but it wasn't totally shit.

Are all Irish people as snippy as a rat terrier?

Sometimes

Don't these raids happen all the time? Most aren't funny, and are pretty fucking harsh.

Sure, most streamers are obnoxious assholes/virgin magnets with tits on display, but it's still a shit thing to do.