1230abcz

Who's played the longest on their accounts? I'd like to see some dude with maxed stats and over 800 days of game play, lol.

It's the law. I can't argue that people's religious status isn't affecting the state of laws being passed, but in clear-cut cases like these where the only debate for it is religion, then it's clear that it should have no standing at all in Congress or anywhere government related. Is it only a debate for religion? I know a lot of non-religious people who object to it on the grounds of it being unnatural and disgusting. (Their opinions) The one I see quoted countless times is the "sanctity of marriage." While there might be other opinions, I can safely say it's the only one that's truly giving this movement strength. I know a lot of people think homosexuality is wrong, but that's just discriminating against people. I might think that black people are bent on the destruction of our society, but I'd never attempt to change laws in order to deprive them of their natural rights. It's the law. I can't argue that people's religious status isn't affecting the state of laws being passed, but in clear-cut cases like these where the only debate for it is religion, then it's clear that it should have no standing at all in Congress or anywhere government related. Show me where it is law. It was mentioned in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote I believe. Show me in the Federal or even state Constitution where it exists. And even if it does, human prejudice will always overrule human common sense. It's generally accepted. In the First Amendment, people are granted freedom of religion. If the religious bias of other people is affecting their daily lives, then it's obviously illegal. Sure, human prejudice is part of everyone's lives and we can't ever filter it out, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to change our views and stop laws that promote discrimination. If someone can't get that into their head, I suggest getting a drill bit in there instead.

It's the law. I can't argue that people's religious status isn't affecting the state of laws being passed, but in clear-cut cases like these where the only debate for it is religion, then it's clear that it should have no standing at all in Congress or anywhere government related.

Fair enough. I never mentioned the bible at all tbh ;) My views as a Christian are based on what I see as reasonable and sensible. I don't expect others to see it that way nor will I try to force them to. OK, more confusion, lol. I was speaking in general response to the thread. If I'm talking about you, I'll reply with a quote or say that I am. Lol, sorry I suck at making that clear. Anyway, I do respect your beliefs as a religious person. I just want to make it clear that I DON'T respect people who act as if they need to alter legislation based on those beliefs. If anything, any attempts at changing laws to fit the views of the religious should be treated as an infringement on the basic rights provided by the Constitution (see: separation of church and state).

Also, The Bible doesn't say anything against homosexuals being unnatural. And any mentions of if in The Bible are all from Jesus's apostles, who claim that a man should never copulate with another man. Notice that it never mentions women? I dare say that people in those olden times were pretty bias as to which practice they thought was right or wrong. If you're going to base your beliefs around that, then you might as well just sit in a corner and cry. Edit At Y_Guy_4_life: I didn't call you a conservative idiot. I meant to say that people who try and control the actions of others because of their opinions are idiots. I know you're just stating your opinion in a safe manner, and I'm not condoning that at all. Sorry if it came out like I was.

To me, a sound cannon that could shatter eardrums can be considered unusual. I also consider using attack dogs somewhat of a cruel method of control. That still doesn't change the fact that they're effective without going overboard, right? An explosive helmet is certainly unusual, but it isn't cruel in the sense that it's designed to inflict agony. In fact, it's the exact opposite. That's what we're focusing on, after all; the level of pain the prisoner would feel from the execution method in question. You're still counting the "could possibly be someone else" examples. Again, CP is to be exclusively reserved for when there is undeniable proof, by ANYBODY, that the person that's to be condemned done these things. This removes the "what if" as it applies to guilt. You can come up with better arguments than that. I'm not supporting the current system. What I'm talking about is a refinement of it to increase the accuracy and efficiency of this whole process. I'm willing to accept a small portion of the true monsters into the vaults of this world rather than be executed if it guarantees that the worst of the worst are removed without risking an innocent person to boot. It IS possible to chase these two particular rabbits. Yo, been a while. Also, this will be my last post in this thread. You obviously have strong beliefs for one side as I do. Before I go, I'll respond to this post. I'll number it by paragraphs for numbering reasons. 1.) "A sound cannon," as you put it, would be a device that wouldn't be used for the sole purpose of inflicting harm; it's purpose is to ward off the inevitable danger that dangerous prison inmates can wreak when they escape into the public. Any type of non lethal technology isn't meant to be cruel since its intent is to make sure no fatal injuries are sustained during the capture of a criminal. The very purpose of non lethal technology goes against cruel and unususual punishment. These types of technology are necessary in order to ensure that a system of extremely high level prisons can function safely and cheaply without the need of specially trained troops with bazookas and high level duct tape. Also, an exploding helmet has its perks, I wont argue, but it's definitely unusual punishment. If you have any qualms with that, then I suggest you send a letter to Congress asking them to rewrite the Constitution. I can only wonder how the family of the criminal (who, I'm sure, would sustain at least some level of respect for their fellow family member even after the horrible crimes they've supposedly committed) would react when they realize that their son, daughter, cousin, etcetera will be killed with little to chance of ever recognizing them again. If I were the family, I'd make damn sure I still had a relative to bury, and certainly, you can't argue that the family hasn't done anything wrong at all and should be given some form of peace and respect. 2,3.) Sure I can. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. What you're thinking of is magic. I can only think of a handful of cases where the alleged criminal was undoubtedly tried for what he/she did, and a "refinement" of the entire system would cost too much time and money, especially for only a few cases every few decades. I'd rather have a few hundred prisoners be kept in a high security prison until they die and make them do labor. It's cheaper, more effective if certain precautions are taken, and definitely more ethical (in my opinion of course). Sure, it's possible to chase both of these ideas, but what I'm saying is that one is clearly the cheaper alternative. In a capitalistic society, I really can't think of a better reason to argue against CP.

It's really just the way he worded things: why would ANYONE choose to be something that can make life harder due to discriminations etc? In the context of your story, it would be pretty hard to believe someone would willingly choose to put up with all the hardships you have to face on a daily basis. However, there are many cases where people do choose to be something that makes life harder due to discrimination (think of religion). Exactly. Being religious in today's day and age you face a lot of discrimination, people seem to have no respect for your opinion. Now I don't really have an opinion about why people are "gay" but I firmly believe acting on it is a choice - as is acting on anything for any person. For what reasons (or examples) are you saying it is a choice? Being gay isn't a choice(or at least I don't think it is, I can't tell since I'm not) Acting on it is, 100%. For example, as a straight male, I have sexual urges. I was with my girlfriend last night babysitting her little cousin, and her cousin had went to bed. I wanted to..do...things...but I controlled myself due to the fact it would be disrespectful to do so in someone elses house when they had trust placed upon me. Thus, I had urges and chose not to act on them. I'm friends with several gay people. I talk to them fairly frequently. The point I'm trying to make here is that many people (on this thread or elsewhere) paint a picture like "I'm gay, I have to act upon it). You don't have to. I realize it's hard, incredibly hard, but straight people do it (Example: priests, nuns, etc.) and some nonreligious people for personal reasons. We aren't animals - we have a choice with every action we make regardless of our orientation. WT...F...? I don't know what your standing is, but let me get this clear for myself. Being gay is unnatural, but resisting a primordial urge to have sex isn't? Huh? It's a choice, yes; so is everything else, but that doesn't mean something that's a choice should be outlawed because it goes against the supposed status quo of the conservative idiots who think their opinions should affect the actions of others. Edit: What are you trying to say exactly? I really have no idea.

Interesting. That sounds like something I've done in the past, lol.

You're a cruel [bleep]. Doing that is going to mentally and physically torment the dog until it does. OMG morphine, lol. But I get where you're coming from, which is why I hate elaborate analogies. So many hidden meanings.

Yes, yes it is. This IS a very hot topic for people in general. 1) The dog's not what I'm worried about. What I'm worried about is how many people they're going to maul before they're subdued and/or put down. Ultra-high aggression is one of the symptoms of rabies in animals, which is why I used that analogy. The people I'm wanting CP to apply to are that sort. 2A) As I said previous, CP should be reserved exclusively for the cases that it's undeniable that the person(s) in question committed the atrocities they're accused of doing (video being one example, and a few other situational examples). This would remove the chance of a wrongful execution almost entirely. 2B) That's the purpose of a double-tap, in case they're not dead from the first shot. Also, we don't need some sort of Saw-like Rube Goldberg machine of death in order to ensure that the person is executed in as quick and painless a way as possible. If a simple double-tap wouldn't work, then maybe a cheap explosive to vaporize the head might cut it. Wouldn't be a pretty sight OR an easy cleanup (unless if the room is designed for that), but it would be pretty painless (head is destroyed before pain is felt). 6) When it comes to these sorts of people, if execution is not an option, then I feel that the only thing sensible is to take every possible measure in order to guarantee that nobody or nothing will ever get out of the prison in question without proper and legal authorization. One of the better ways to do that is to put said prison in a place where nobody can get to or off it without serious hardware and have it soaked to the gills with United States military. Nobody short of a Terminator would be able to even swing at a guard without being wtfpwnt before they can blink. The same can't always be said about regular guards, as evidenced by how often prison riots and takeovers occur around the world (and often in places a lot more hardcore than American prisons). Thanks for toning down the condescending attitude in your recent post. It was starting to get irritating, but you seem to have caught it on your own. You just repeated everything you said before... I proposed many new ideas that can be applied and can easily work, but you haven't answered any of them. Your blowing up method is unusual punishment, which, as I mentioned before, isn't supported by the Bill of Rights. Also, super-super-mega-giga high security prisons aren't necessary. I've already explained that housing extremely dangerous criminals can be cheap if done effectively. If current non-lethal technology can subdue terrorists with guns and bombs, why is it so impossible to believe that they can't be used to stop prison inmates with shanks as weapons from escaping? I liked this quote: "This would remove the chance of a wrongful execution almost entirely." The fact is that there is no possible way to ensure that any system short of mind reading can entirely condemn someone to a crime. Not even video proof (what if it was someone that looked alike and the person being prosecuted was being threatened to pipe down?) can ensure a sentence without reasonable doubt. If this fact remains, how can anyone support CP? Also, please answer why you think it's feasible to have a system that has been known to waste a crap load of money when there are many other options that are available.

I'll number these so you know which I'm talking about with each. 1) No, that's not what I'm talking about. Let me give you an example. You like your dog, right? What would you do if he came down with rabies? You'd set your love of the family pet aside and put him down, so he doesn't hurt anybody else. It's a similar thing with the "people" I'm talking about. 2) I'm not wanting to use this for the people who make stupid mistakes. I'm wanting to use capital punishment for the true monsters of society. The people I'm talking about are the kind who'd massacre everyone they can just because they like the look of internal organs on their hands, or the people who'd enslave dozens of innocent children for their own profit. THOSE are the kind of people I'm wanting to see excised from humanity. This is what I'm talking about when I think of people who relinquished their claim to humanity. 3) This is essentially a retelling of the previous one, but alright. Again, I'm not talking about the people who have made mistakes (the buildings with small cracks in the structure). I'm talking about the people who are little more than animals in regard to their actions (the buildings that are one feather away from crashing to the ground). There is a HUGE difference in my eyes, and they should be treated as such. One can (and should) be repaired, and the other should be removed before it damages/destroys surrounding buildings. 4) The people I'm referring to are above and beyond "dangerous prison inmates". These are the people who'd kill anybody just because it's fun. If they're kept anywhere near the redeemable inmates, they can either corrupt or kill them with altogether minimal difficulty. This is an argument for having separate prisons for various crime types, but that's a different discussion. 5) Technically, no method of execution ever is painless. However, it is undeniable that a headshot is quick, and is cheap. Also, in the cases that I'm thinking about in reference to capital punishment, there is no other reasonable course of action besides complete lockdown of the inmate for the duration of their life in some underground bunker beneath the ocean. That's the only thing that I can think of that would be damn near inescapable, but I think you can see the problems with that. 6) I agree with removing (or at least retooling) the 3 strikes rule in altogether minor cases. I'm also in favor of the creation of higher security prisons for the worse criminals. However, the military prison idea wouldn't work very well unless if kept in a very out-of-the-way place and manned by actual military. The reason being that sort of prison is above and beyond the capacity for normal civilian groups to handle, both in terms of money and clearance (being able to use this stuff in a safe/efficient manner). This would be a somewhat larger money sink than any other prison, too. Do the (forgive the movie references) Freddy Krugers and Michael Myers of this world REALLY deserve that sort of special attention? This is going to be a huge page now, lol. 1.)Bad example. The dog will die eventually; painfully. If I had a choice of keeping the dog under "prison," and give it the chance to live, then I would. Prison inmates aren't going to eventually die, in a sense, but they can be kept in a prison, away from people they can hurt. Also, I hereby end the use of analogies. They suck. 2,3,4,5.) Killing people, not matter how dangerous they are, shouldn't be exercised, but this is just a matter of personal ethics. You're saying that people should be killed cheaply, efficiently, and quickly, right? But, answer this, how can a court system (short of being magical) ever be perfect in the sense that people are never wrongfully executed? Even after spending close to a hundred million on capital punishment cases, people STILL get killed for things they haven't done. You might say that it could be reserved for people who are undeniably caught in the act (on a video or whatever), but then the obvious question is how should we kill them? The reason we spend so much money for capital punishment is because it's meant to be painless. It has been argued that lethal injections are painful, but they paralyze every muscle in the body, effectively destroying all capabilities to feel pain, so any pain that is felt is psychological. Even if it is painful, it doesn't mean we should condone such acts just because they are the LEAST painful. The Constitution protects against Cruel and Unusual Punishment, so this procedure has to be taken so that it's not violated. Gas chambers also work -- new methods are painless and effective -- but they're even more expensive than lethal injections because criminals need to be housed in special chambers so that gases don't leak out in large quantities, which could be harmful to communities or animals within a few miles. Putting a bullet through someone's head wont work... At all. I'm assuming you think it's painless, but it's not. People survive bullets to the brain a lot, and anyone that does is left a vegetable. Think of how expensive it would be for the government to keep a person in a permanent vegetative state alive forever because an execution didn't go as planned? Also, it's not painless. Shooting the brain doesn't mean all nerve endings are automatically cut off; it just means that whatever the bullet damaged wont function. All pain is felt through nerves, which go up the spine, and into the the brain to register pain; if you shoot the brain directly, it causes massive pain to go throughout the entire body until the person dies (if they die). Any methods that might be quick aren't exactly painless, so the entire idea of capital punishment for a select few is too expensive. Even if there was a way to do this, there aren't many prison inmates who are complete monsters of humanity, and creating an entire branch of the government to deal with them is useless. 6.) Branching off from that, the only viable solution is to either abandon all sense of ethics and go on a killing spree, or create a higher level of prison, where only a few hundred hundred inmates are kept (Alcatraz) and are kept under tight lock down. There's no need for the military or a special police forces to deal with these people, only normal prison guards with technology developed by many private and military companies that create non-lethal weapons. If inmates were to ever escape, all the guards would have to do is release some tear gas, turn on a siren that can easily shatter the ear drums of the escapees, and subdue them with force (maybe some high voltage in the form of tasers). There are a lot of options, and all of them are economically and ethically better than capital punishment.

1.) Sell your Jaw. 2.) ??? 3.) PROFIT!!!

Copulate with it. 1230abcz

Damn straight. TPUM knows what I iz be talkin' about.

Granted. They're not bold characters; they're abnormally thick and large (hehe, like my pen- *gets banned*) I wish I wasn't banned.

I wouldn't recommend bursting for charms at such low mage; you'll be horribly inaccurate. If you do burst, for every 2k bursts, you're looking at around exp equal to 500 crimson charms. Not 500 crimson charms, but exp equal to it. Don't know how long it takes since I never timed it, but not too long for only 2k crimsons. I suggest you kill waterfiends though.

Tell my family that I love them, and go out with some lulz. Probably a huge [wagon] fire and explosives with friends and family. Also, I'd try to get laid as many times as possible.

Uhh... try being funny. Maybe it'll work out. Or you can just stop being such a narb, lol. If you're a total loner, get a Facebook and try to make friends from your school that way. Maybe if you're successful enough, people might actually be able to hold in their digested food for a minute or so and grace you with their social prowess. Other than that, you're a failure at everything because you're my evil twin, and I dominate everything and more. Heard of /b/? Go to 4chan and post that picture. You'll get an answer before you make the thread. Seriously.

I'd go to 4chan and try to make the asteroid into a meme.

Banned for dissin' Zombie-Like Humans. WTF is up with you people and dissing all the cool stuff? Seriously, just get banned and leave.

People have escaped jail before, just like people have been wrongfully sentenced to death. They are both pretty rare occasions if you ask me, but that doesn't mean they should be overlooked. I agree, it shouldn't, but it also shouldn't be fixed with an entire revamping of the system. Why not just more security? More workers? Doesn't the economy need more jobs? Bam, I just made a few thousand extra jobs. See next quote for response. Limited time only. Read now and get another response for only half the price. I'll respond to this. Here's my definition of the prison/capital punishment system. Prison: Meant to keep dangerous people away from society; not from other dangerous people. If two murderers want to have a brawl at each other even under the common knowledge that they're currently under lock down, then so be it; let them have their fun. Capital Punishment (CP): Kill people for crimes they've committed. I've pointed out why CP is pointless, but I'll paraphrase the most important one, in my opinion. It's not ethical in anyway to MURDER someone for something they're currently being detained for. If they're not a threat to society, there's no reasonable justification to kill them. Why not just use them for labor so they can give something back to society? If it were up to me, I'd make them clean up national parks under very close supervision or even have them make some raw products. Assuming that someone might escape while in prison is just idiotic. I'm not calling you an idiot, but basing an entire system around the probability of something occurring undermines entire system in itself. Why have a free market at all if we know it's going to crash and burn sooner or later? CP is very expensive and inaccurate. I can easily name more than 10 people who have been wrongfully killed for not doing anything. The same goes for people who are on death row but haven't been killed; A LOT of them get off because they didn't actually commit the crime they were prosecuted for or it was deemed that their crime wasn't harsh enough to justify CP. My question is, what if they were killed? Suck for them I guess, right? Thanks for responding. Anyway, I'll get on with my rebuttal. I'm not considering ethics in this particular case. In my eyes, the things that people who this would apply to have rescinded their right to ethical treatment and mercy by way of destroying another person(s) physically and/or mentally. Once it gets to this point, and it is certain that they have absolutely no remorse and no good reason for it (don't get cute with this, you know what I'm talking about), then they have revoked their own claim to humanity and should be regarded as such. Deny it all you will, but prison escapes and other acts (hostile takeovers by inmates, for example) DO happen, if only on a limited basis. I want to limit the impact of those as much as is feasibly possible. One method of that is to take the most dangerous offenders (the true monsters) and remove them from the equation entirely. To go with your "free market" analogy, it would be like taking a rotted-out building and deconstructing it rather than risk its eventual collapse damaging surrounding structures and people. Capital punishment is expensive and inaccurate for two reasons. One, the officials in charge absolutely insist on the more complex and expensive disposal methods (namely, lethal injection). Switching these out for something both quick and efficient (for example, a bullet to the brain) should fix that problem nicely. Two, these cases are in all examples drawn out needlessly. A large portion of appeals are on things entirely unrelated to the crime itself, and just multiply the costs while failing to do their job entirely. Refining the original process itself to the point that appeals become redundant is the best counter to this. I'm not advocating capital punishment as it is. I'm advocating a refurbishment of the entire system surrounding it, making it more efficient, effective, and cheap. The current way of doing it is costly, both in money and in innocent blood. Wow, you scare me. I really hope that later on in life you don't teach these things to your kids; seriously. These are the kinds of things that defy the main purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. First of all, what do you mean you're not considering ethics? Isn't that the point of everything that creates society? Do you know what would happen if we didn't take into account ethics when we punished criminals (even the most horrendous)? I'll tell you. Guantanamo Bay. Torture. Stalin. Hitler. Loss of the 8th amendment in our Bill of Rights. And before you respond to my way of slippery slopes, I'll just tell you straight up: most of the things you said are by no means what's represented by a fair and just trail system. Ethics are what define our society as human, and no, I'm not getting cute with you. People make stupid mistakes; people even tend to kill others on basis of irrational thought (read Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcom Gladwell, it's a really good read). Even if they lose all morals and have no remorse for their actions, they haven't given up their right to live, which is what this entire argument is about. I don't know what you think about human character, but I KNOW people aren't mindless killing machines that, once past a certain point, must be killed off for the betterment of society. Here's something you said: "it would be like taking a rotted-out building and deconstructing it rather than risk its eventual collapse damaging surrounding structures and people." No. That doesn't apply. I don't know how you managed to make "killing people" in a user-friendly euphemism, but you did it; somehow. It's like saying you should go about destroying a building with expensive explosives because it MIGHT collapse through a protective wall and hurt innocent bystanders. You could however not risk killing the innocent and go destroy the building, but you run an even greater risk of accidentally destroying a hundred billion dollar building (yes, human life is priceless) on the assumption that there might be a crack in the structure or a small mishap. Instead of going about trying to fix the crack or contain the collapsing building, you decide to destroy it through a long and tedious process that's been proven to not work. Was that a long enough analogy? What you said was that there have been prison escapes, yes, I wont argue with that. But what you are saying is that we should just not bother with dangerous prison inmates and kill them off without any remorse or pity, and I thoroughly disagree with that, with passion. I don't know how to say it, but this very thought irks me. It's not even about a logical debate anymore; it's about what you define to be a fair system of punishment. What I do know is that I have thousands of years of history that tells me that killing people without pity is just as bad as killing innocent people. I'd cite this, but I expect you to look it up yourself, and I'm not being lazy either. The worst part about your post was this: "Capital punishment is expensive and inaccurate for two reasons. One, the officials in charge absolutely insist on the more complex and expensive disposal methods (namely, lethal injection). Switching these out for something both quick and efficient (for example, a bullet to the brain) should fix that problem nicely." Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but, I'm sorry to say, your opinion is wrong. It wont fix up any problem nicely. Read back to my previous posts. The 8th amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishments, and shooting people in the brain is by no means fair and painless. I half-expect you to say that people who had no remorse in killing other human beings shouldn't be given the same remorse when it comes to their punishment, but I really hope you don't. This just entails that you don't care enough about human life; that you'd rather just be rid of it instead of trying to preserve it. Violence only creates more violence; there's no just cause in killing another person when there are other, more viable options to pursue. You want to refurbish the entire punishment system? OK. Why not stop putting people in jail for life for three counts of robbery, illegal drug possession, and light assault? This way, prisons wouldn't be as crowded as they are today and the people who truly deserve to be quarantined from society could be supervised with close scrutiny. An even better solution would be to create higher levels of high security prison with more guards and defense gates that fully debilitate the escapees. There are many non-violent methods to prevent prison inmates from escaping that are currently in use by the military in violent, terrorist-ridden areas that work extremely effectively (a directed sound beam that can shatter someone's ear drums from a few hundred feet away would work beautifully). Why go about killing people when you can do these things instead?

Granted, but they all exploit how much of a noob you are. I wish for the perfect wish that could never back fire and has to come true, even if it's not granted.

Divine is useless for casual monster hunting, like slayer. But I mostly GWD, so I'd rather have a divine.

what are the current rates for 3rd age pieces?