Assume Nothing

It's amazing what a little YouTubing can do.

Banned for no reason.

Banned for the wordplay.

Don't get me wrong here - I love live commentaries. It's just that we've seen video after video of the same structure - the lack of variety just makes it... lets say less than unique. RS combat, as we all know, is mundane - the point of making the videos is to make it exciting and entertaining. Do we really need to watch 4 minutes worth of fighting to watch a death?

I'd just make a brief comment here: Your videos are far, far too stretched out; as a viewer, I'm not really interested in watching you spend 4 minutes just to die to the person you're fighting. I'd be more interested as a viewer in watching the 'epic' moments, including moments of panic, amazing risk, and moments that are just... hilarious. I'd suggest the use of a little more editing - speed up parts where its just watching 0s, zoom in slightly on high hit k0s, have the 'screen' maximized with the inventory/minimap layered on top, etc. It would really make the video more fun - right now, it's a bit of a drag. RS video producers like ChrisArchieProds get a high number of viewers because they're entertaining; it might be a good idea to incorporate that into your videos too. You can get a good quality mic instead of using an iPad for audio recordings too. It'll sound better, and you'd probably have a better time because you don't have to do live commentary which is probably distracting. That's my two cents.

Banned for inferring something that's not even suggested.

The social reluctance of people in general to do something about the things that annoy them. -redacted for Randox-

Freud was right!

I'd say solitary confinement is more akin to torture than imprisonment. How is torture legally defined, by the way?

Well consider if she likes you as well. Does she? Great, ask if you can speak to her privately next time you see her, ask her out. That's what I'd do. Speaking of girls, the girl I fancy seems to like me more alone (being flirty), but around a large® group of people I try not to spend as much time around/talking to her as I don't want to seem clingy, but she does seem to like me. I just don't know how much. I do plan on asking her out, but I'm just not sure how much she really does like me. :unsure: Yeah, mainly I'm beating myself up because I've seen and had the oppurtunities I've just chickened out everytime and not taken it... What exactly is the worst that could happen? Rejection now is better than rejection later. It'll play on your mind if you keep this lack of confidence thing going on.

The discussion above brings about a question to be put forth: If the prisoner doesn't want to live a life of torturous hell, should we stop them taking their own lives? In fact - should we provide them the means to commit suicide if they wanted to? I pretty much adopt that view, Croce - except it might be too costly for capital punishment to really be feasible for relatively small crimes like third degree murder. That's not to say that I support life without parole either - since the inmate would have no incentive to behave, that would probably encourage misbehaviour in prisons - although arguable in high security cells. Hmm, lots of food for thought.

I think some figures would be nice to put things into perspective. The difference could be minute at something like $200, or it could be astronomical at $120,000. Is it closer to the former, or the latter?

I don't think that was the original point. I'm saying 'if they can survive on less than the poverty line level, and can afford a small amount of luxuries on the remainder of their payments - why should they be penalized by being denied part of their payments? I think I could have clarified better - ofcourse, I'm referring to those fully eligible due to pertaining circumstances. I don't think many people want to live in those circumstances - and it's not 'so easy to live on welfare' - which I'm not even sure where that was inferred from. The point was - if they could be frugal and can afford to spend the 'extra' money they receive from benefits on luxuries should they choose to, why should we stop them? I think its fair for those in that kind of situation to have the freedom to choose whether they want to spend it on those things or not. The argument is obviously based around the idea that the amount paid in benefits is fair at approx 60GBP/week (I believe that's what JSA is at the moment?)

Banned for having an odd avatar.

I don't follow - what's the relevance, and what do you mean - i.e. what are you suggesting?

I'm probably more infamous than I am famous.

I guess on a practical level - it's not very feasible to bring in capital punishment. How about reserving it for the very worst in society, like Harold Shipman, or perhaps The Night Stalker?

I think they deserve to spend it on luxuries if they so choose - but that must mean a compromise on other spending; i.e. a compromise on food. I think a lifestyle with no luxuries is a little too rigid - it's not much of a life worth living, and it doesn't motivate them by depriving them. It might be an idea to give welfare payments in non-monetary terms though, maybe like foodstamps - except it'll be more tightly controlled (e.g. government permits stores/managers to ban people if they obviously exploit the stamps)

Disorder | Rating Paranoid: Very High Schizoid: Very High Schizotypal: Moderate Antisocial: Moderate Borderline: Low Histrionic: High Narcissistic: High Avoidant: Low Dependent: Low Obsessive-Compulsive: High My results vary on how I interpret the questions. The last time I've tried, the 'paranoia' criteria was 'High' as opposed to 'Very High'. I don't think that's the way I would define paranoia though. Hmmph

I want to briefly take the devil's advocate route here: Why does it matter what they spend it on, if they so choose? If they can live off a fraction of what they get, and decide to spend the rest on luxuries like tobacco, alcohol, or even strippers - why does it matter to you?

If you live on the Bible belt of America, you'd love the radio there - as if the 'lord' himself cannot convey the message himself without the use of am/fm frequencies.

It's an interesting thread to revisit. I'd say, on moral grounds, it would be fine to use capital punishment if these conditions are met: Very high certainty of guilt (a lot of evidence, especially camera based evidence) Very unlikely to rehabilitate (crime dependent) They must pose a significant threat to society (likelihood of escape) And there must be severe consequences of escape (i.e. committing heinous crimes where the prisoner would be likely to reoffend, like rape/murder/armed robbery - given their incentives) It would be less about the deterrence than the elimination of a threat - a dead person can no longer pose a threat to society, whereas a prisoner, if escaped, can. It's unlikely, which is why it must be weighed out. I'm not sure how it'll work on war criminals like Gaddaffi though - it may just cause martyrdom. I'd say it is worse to keep a prisoner that would deprave many citizens of society their rights to life, than to withdraw the prisoner's right to life. The ultimate purpose of morality is to allow society to function and prosper effectively - to argue about rights in a deontological respect would be a futile practice. I'd say the death penalty is fine, so long as it's reserved only for the worst of offenders.

Go on? [Edit] I think it's a little dumb to be overly conscious and methodical about seduction, but I've used negging "automatically" and it worked for me... How certain are you that it was the negging that did the trick? Oh, and what do you mean when you refer to the term 'negging'? I think because of its ambiguous nature, it could be causing confusion/disagreement here.

I don't think it will ruin the benefits of the many to change the system - depending on what you're interpreting what I mean by changing the system. I'm proposing a policy where foodstamps + part welfare payments are issued instead of full welfare payments to minimize costs, to make jobs more appealing by changing the regulations around it, and to make getting hired a quicker and more simplistic process (currently may take up to a month). I do support the welfare/benefits system, but not the way it is currently run in the UK. I think there should be tweaks, but there shouldn't be removal. I don't want to accuse you of anything, but please don't do the same to what I'm saying. How would you propose to minimize abuse and maximize employment, if that's your objective of this discussion?

It's implied when you've said that every system has abusers. It's suggesting that we shouldn't do anything about it, because nothing would completely eradicate abusers. I was addressing that implicit notion. We do agree on the point that we should minimize abusers of the system though, right? The question here now is 'how'?