venomai

Same. :thumbup: Using strong perfume on a daily basis seems pretty "over the top," in my opinion.

Cheers for missing my point and rebutting with something completely irrelevant. :thumbup:

Her hands give it away. ;) [hide=spoiler, cited]The model, Eniko Mihalik, was born in 1988. http://nymag.com/fashion/models/emihalik/enikomihalik/[/hide]

If the joke is worded poorly enough, then yes... :lol:

No. You are the first to quote such an irrelevant statistic.

A lot of substances (e.g. alcohol) can be "extremely bad for you." This does not mean that criminalizing their use and possession (e.g. American Prohibition) is necessarily the best route of action, nor does it mean that the government should necessarily have power over how you use your body and mind. The cost of cocaine in Columbia is about $2 per gram[1]. The high prices of these drugs in America is not due to their production costs. If cocaine and meth were to be decriminalized/legalized, their price would likely drop substantially. And putting a tax on the sale of cigarettes/alcohol is not an exploitation? Alcohol kills more people than all illicit drugs combined; however, it would be ludicrous to start prosecuting the manufacturers and distributors of alcohol for the misuse of their drug by the general public. Personal use and/or possession of a drug is not analogous to personal use and/or possession of another person against their will. :lol:

The first chart is a subjective ranking made by just one health professional; Dr. Jack E. Henningfield. The second study, minus the World of Warcraft addition, is a little more reliable, but it is still merely the results of subjective rankings from various health professionals[1]. Both marijuana and caffeine are habit-forming substances with low physical addiction potential. Some individuals will prefer the stimulating effects of coffee, and thus may be more at risk of caffeine dependence, while others may prefer the sedating and euphoric effects of marijuana, and thus may be more at risk of cannabis dependence. It's difficult to suggest which one is "more addicting" than the other, as addiction potential from either depends so strongly on the individual and their environment.

This would be costly, unrealistic and unnecessary. Imagine if something similar was put in place with alcohol use. :lol: Less harmful than cannabis? You will need to provide sources for that. MDMA can have strong psychedelic effects. It's use can result in the same bad trips, flashbacks and HPPD that are attributed to LSD and psilocybin[1]. MDMA also has a much higher risk of fatal overdose than cannabis, something which children are particularly vulnerable to, and have even died from[2]. MDMA's neurotoxicity, while not conclusively established, has also been at the centre of debate among researchers. Risks such as behavioural changes and long-term memory deficits has been suggested[3][4]. Other evidence suggests that MDMA may create complications such as fatal neurologic effects (e.g. subarachnoid hemorrhage, cerebral infarction, or intracranial bleeds[5][6]) and liver failure[7]. Lockjaw and teeth grinding are other subtle problems that can be seen during an MDMA trip; both of which are difficult to control. There is also a considerable amount of evidence to suggest poor psychomotor control while under the influence of MDMA (i.e. you are not necessarily as "in control" as you suggest)[8]. Lastly, misuse of MDMA can produce physiological problems that can and often do lead to death; this includes hyponatremia (from drinking too much water), hyperthermia (high heat from too much dancing) and serotonin syndrome (too much serotonin is released; often the result of mixing 5-HTP and MDMA in order to reduce the depressive after-effects). All in all, while MDMA is relatively safe compared to alcohol and cigarettes, it is generally considered more harmful than a drug like cannabis, particularly when compared to non-smoked cannabis (i.e. vapourized). It's effects also tend to be seen as less predictable and less sedating than cannabis, and more stimulating (it is, after all, a stimulant).

I started as a member of Runescape Central many years ago. It sparked my interest in sigmaking and graphics, and when RuneHQ and their anal rules took over, I eventually migrated to Zybez and Tip.it to keep the gold flowing.

Romeo & Juliet (1968) had a beautiful score, particularly the "love theme." Andre Rieu covered it well: dHyR4ZzA2R0

We are discussing citizen self-defense. Presumably, most law-abiding citizens armed with deadly weapons are not looking to go on a killing spree.

Desensitization, which requires, among other things, engaging in torture, is necessary for professional torture in these scenarios. Jessica Wolfendale wrote on the topic in Training Torturers: A Critique of the "Ticking Bomb" Argument. [hide=]the training process of these specialised units [torturers] involves intense, highly stressful, and often brutal exercises. Aside from the more conventional weapons and fitness training, trainees are subjected to the techniques of psychological torture, a process which is extremely distressing and humiliating and can result in dissociation and deep anxiety. (35) Despite the severity of this training and the suffering that it can cause to trainees, this training is very effective in desensitizing trainees to the infliction and the endurance of suffering. (36) New trainees become desensitized to their own suffering, and when they in their turn play the "torturer" in the stress inoculation training they learn to be desensitized to the infliction of pain. This desensitization reduces soldiers' empathetic reaction to physical suffering and thereby makes the infliction of pain and humiliation on the enemy psychologically easier. Given that the ticking bomb torturer might have to inflict incredibly brutal tortures without flinching, he must be thoroughly desensitised to the infliction of pain and must not be hampered by feelings of empathy or sympathy for the suspect-in the ticking bomb scenario there would be no time for hesitation. The Khmer Rouge Manual makes the same point: "is necessary to avoid any question or hesitancy or half-heartedness of not daring to do torture, which makes it impossible to get answers to our questions from our enemies, which slows down and delays our work ... it is necessary to hold steadfastly to a stance of not being half-hearted or hesitant. We must be absolute. Only thus, can we work to good effect." (37) The basic training described above is only part of the process, however. Despite the brutality of the Special Forces training, torturers still need time to get used to their work. One Chilean ex-torturer described this process: "When you first start doing this job, it is hard ... you hide yourself and cry, so nobody can see you. Later on, you don't cry, you only feel sad ... And after ... not wanting to ... but wanting to, you start getting used to it. Yes, definitely, there comes a moment when you feel nothing about what you are doing." (38) Torturers, if they are to be effective and efficient, must "feel nothing" about what they are doing.[/hide] It's one thing to learn how to torture another person, but it's another thing entirely to actually torture them.

Zierro - All of these weapons, from the simplest of pistols to the most complex of assault rifles, have the potential to kill multiple people (and often, they do). These are all "effective means of self-defense" only in the sense that they are deadly weapons, i.e. they almost certainly will kill the attacker, thus ending the attack. Apologies for the reductio ad absurdum, as you seemed to have missed my point. The point is; it would be ridiculous to resolve the problem by trying to make the victim on par with the criminal, i.e. by giving them more destructive and more violent means of self-defense. This isn't a video game or a war. Just because our 'enemies' carry big and deadly weapons doesn't mean we ought to as well. Do you think someone with a gun would be afraid of someone with pepper spray? Most criminals will be afraid enough to avoid mugging/attacking a person armed with pepper spray. The fear lies in the risk of a painful incapacitation which may lead to their capture and arrest. You wish to draw a line; perhaps we should draw that line before the use of deadly and unnecessary force.

That's ridiculous. Many criminals use explosives and assault rifles -- do you honestly feel that citizens ought to be armed with these weapons to be on par with the criminals who use them? Self-defense is not intended to make us as violent and destructive as the criminals we are defending ourselves from. You're reducing law-abiding citizens to the level of murderers, terrorists, etc.

If we deem torture permissible for such extreme situations, then we must also train professional torturers. An amateur torturer may not be able to acquire the information fast enough, or at all (not to mention psychological damage to the torturer). Of course, this training would require actual torture (and often not for such extreme situations). It becomes evident that this isn't simply a question of "extreme hypothetical situations." Reality is the major criticism to these arguments. How often do these 'ticking time bomb' scenario occur in reality? Often enough to justify the training of professional torturers? It's become a common feature of television, regardless of the actual likelihood of the scenario. "Most terrorism experts will tell you that the ticking time bomb situation never occurs in real life, or very rarely. But on our show it happens every week." - a creator of 24 [1] It's very difficult to find any prominent 'ticking time bomb' scenarios that could be resolved solely by torture, let alone enough of them to justify the training of professional torturers. Torture is an unreliable and barbaric manner of acquiring information, and I do not support it.

Don't you think if self-defense was widespread and prevalent, that criminals would have less of a reason to attack people in the first place since they know there is a good chance that attacking someone could actually lead to their own death? It isn't just the threat of death that deters these crimes, but also the threat of incapacitation and serious injury (which may lead to arrest). Citizen self-defense is effective at deterring these crimes, but that does not mean we need to train all citizens to kill their attackers. For example, if all citizens were armed with pepper spray, or trained in martial arts, you would see a sharp decline in muggings and other confrontations.

Changes in... [*:21ekmumj]Culture: Whether this be at school or in the home, a shift in public attitude is crucial to reduce the problem of gun violence in the United States. Guns should not be seen as the end-all means of self-defense, gun control should not be seen as an attempt to eradicate personal liberty, and (deadly) vigilantism should not be something to strive for. Most importantly, the southern states need to drift away from the "It's Personal" type of murders that contribute to America's disproportionately high homicide rate. (click for more info) [*:21ekmumj]Production/Distribution: Better regulation ("gun control") is needed to lower the supply in the secondary market (e.g. one per month rule discussed in the study I linked to) and ultimately make firearms more difficult for youth and criminals to acquire. [*:21ekmumj]Ownership: Owning and using a firearm should not be seen as a right, but rather a privilege (much like driving a car). In particular, circumstances such as the use of gun lockers must be met in order to receive and maintain a 'gun permit'. Although full removal of citizen ownership and personal use would be ideal, it is unrealistic given America's current gun culture.

The number of patients entered with non-fatal injuries sustained from (even multiple) stabbings, pipe-hits, punches, etc. seems to suggest that many attackers are either (a) "failing" to kill their victim or (B) simply not bothering to ensure the death of their victim. When these injuries are replaced with gunshot wounds, the chances of mortality increases significantly (and so too will the homicide rate). These stockpiles will dwindle over time, e.g. through police seizures. You overestimate the average criminal: most of them, while not necessarily idiots, do not have the blackmarket sources to acquire Tec-9's and other high-end weaponry. The vast majority acquire their guns -- most of which are simple revolvers, or short semi-automatic pistols (e.g. MP-25) -- from family, friends and drug dealers. Often, these guns were originally stolen from the manufacturers or from legitimate owners. With stricter regulations on production, distribution and ownership, the supply of guns in the secondary market could be significantly reduced. A 1996 study, for example, showed the positive effect of restricting the sale of guns in the primary market: "Gun control policies involving licensing, registration, and restricting the number of purchases represent efforts to limit the supply of guns available in the illegal market. This study provides evidence that restricting handgun purchases to 1 per month is an effective means of disrupting the illegal interstate transfer of firearms." [1] Meth is very easy to produce: [2] Cocaine is more difficult to produce, but still nowhere near as difficult or expensive as manufacturing quality firearms. As I've mentioned, I am not proposing a widespread firearm prohibition akin to the failed War on Drugs. Outright prohibition would, of course, only serve to push the market further underground -- it would do little to reduce the demand and subsequent (ab)use of guns. In order to reduce gun violence in the United States, a different approach would be necessary than what we've used in past drug prohibitions.

As we have discussed in the past, simply because a weapon is effective in self-defense does not mean it would necessarily be worth implementing as a means of citizen self-defense. For example, the introduction of certain handguns, automatic rifles or explosives for citizen use can have extremely detrimental side-effects, and it often far surpasses what is necessary to defend one's self. Which is exactly why we should aim to make these weapons unavailable. The improvisations will, in most cases, be much less reliable than, say, a semi-automatic handgun. In the long run, as less people are getting fatally injured, the homicide rate will be significantly reduced. The secondary (unlicensed) market is dependent on the primary (licensed). Restrict production and distribution in the primary market and you will see a reduction in availability in the secondary market. Over time, if this is well enforced, the secondary market will become a far less viable option for acquiring firearms. The difference, obviously, lies in the production of the good. It is much more difficult and more expensive to manufacture quality firearms than it is to produce quality cocaine/marijuana. And, of course, nobody is proposing a ban akin to the current war on drugs. It's become quite clear that labelling a high-demand good as "illegal" does not help to reduce its demand and subsequent (ab)use.

Some oldish rap: MC Lyte: Cha Cha Cha (1989) Nas: (1992) A Tribe Called Quest: Award Tour (1993) Dr. Octagon: (1996) Sorry, we don't allow sites posted where you can download music illegally. ~ Lionheart_0

I am not flinging the burden of proof, in fact I never brought it up. I am showing why the argument you pasted is absolutely ridiculous; mainly in its false assumptions (i.e. Mercury-size planet = no atmosphere, too hot for humans = no possible life, etc). If you really want to get technical... Neither of us made a positive assertion, so the burden of proof does not apply. The burden of proof does not apply to a statement like "X may or may not be true." The burden of proof applies to statements such as "X is true" or "X is false." I was responding directly to the pasted material, and not necessarily any argument that it was being used for. There is no "perfect planet" just as there is no "perfect colour." Some planets may be better suited for life than others, but this does not necessarily make them "better planets." Research is limited -- we only recently found an extrasolar planet with an atmosphere. Interesting, though, that the particular planet (HD 209458 B) contained oxygen, carbon and evaporating hydrogen. It's atmosphere also seems to contain water vapour. Seems like the "right gases," to me. Of course, other bodies, such as Europa, can potentially sustain life even without an apparently "perfect" atmosphere (i.e. Earth-like). I doubt god's existence (as claimed by religion) not because "no evidence has yet to surface" but because "no evidence will ever surface," among other reasons. Scientists and astronomers are searching for answers, and are finding them at an exponential rate. Many theists, on the other hand, claim to already have found the answer, and feel no need to search further (let alone attempt to support their findings).

Where did you get this? Most of the above is, quite frankly, a load of bull. (1) Size is not the only factor to influence atmosphere. Europa, which is smaller than Mercury[1][2], also has an atmosphere[3]. Mind you, even with its thin atmosphere, and even at such a distance from the sun, it's very possible that life exists in Europa's deep oceans (extremophiles). "Weve spent quite a bit of time and effort trying to understand if Mars was once a habitable environment. Europa today, probably, is a habitable environment. We need to confirm this but Europa, potentially, has all the ingredients for life and not just four billion years ago but today." [4] Had Earth been 'larger', life still could have sustained. Had Earth been ten times larger, like Jupiter[5], then perhaps life would not have sustained. Do you see the problem with this comparison, though? (2) Not surprising, considering that we have only observed a tiny fraction of the hundreds of billions of planets in our own galaxy. (3) We (humans) may burn up or freeze, but that does not mean that life would be impossible. Many forms of life have been found living in extremely harsh conditions (extreme heat, extreme cold). As has been mentioned, bodies outside of this range (such as Europa) can potentially still harbour life. With that said, we are not talking about a fraction of a difference in position. The "habitable zone" is quite wide, and we have even observed exoplanets in it[6]. All this data may be "perfect" for human life as we know it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that complex life (perhaps even human life) would not have still evolved on Earth (or any other planet) had things been slightly differet. "What matters is not whether there is anything unusual about Earth; there is going to be something idiosyncratic about every planet in space. What matters is whether any of Earths circumstances are not only unusual but also essential for complex life. So far weve seen nothing to suggest there is." [7] "...The anthropic alternative to the design hypothesis is statistical. Scientists invoke the magic of large numbers. It has been estimated that there are between 100 billion and 300 billion planets in our galaxy, and about 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Knocking a few noughts off for reasons of ordinary prudence, a billion billion is a conservative estimate of the number of available planets in the universe. Now suppose the origin of life, the spontaneous arising of something equivalent to DNA, really was quite a staggeringly improbable event. Suppose it was so improbable as to occur on only one in a billion planets. ... But here we are talking about odds of one in a billion. And yet ... even with such absurdly long odds, life will still have arisen on a billion planets of which Earth of course, is one." [8] Furthermore, Dawkin's above argument assumes that there is only one universe. If the multiverse and/or cyclic universe theories are correct, which they very well may be, the chances of complex would be infinitely higher.

So we produce guns for only those who are only going to use them for self defense or walk around with knives instead? Err... no.

Self-defense is a good thing. I think we can all agree on that. A gun, however, is not the only means of self-defense. And while it may be an effective means of self-defense, that alone doesn't justify the sale and production of more firearms. This becomes particularly evident after considering the effect in the long run (i.e. higher homicide rates, more guns in the hands of criminals, etc).

If... (1968) - was pretty boring. Les ordres (1974) - very good, albeit a little slow.