ember3579

Any of the people who came up with this have the last name Custer? Sure as Hell looks like it. :lol: On the dodgeball thing, that's entirely bogus. If they are that anal about it, they should block any and all news research. THAT is more likely to cause people to become aggressive than almost anything I can think of. And yes, I think that if the man-[female dog] who said that REALLY wants to press it, it should be within boundaries to show him some real violence, not beaning each other in the family jewels with semi-hard rubber spheres from 5-50 feet off. Maybe then he won't be so bloody whiney?

I feel sorry for Obama. He had to put up with this silly sh** for the past few years as a senator, and now that he FINALLY became the president, the governor of his state was auctioning off his seat while he was still in it. I'll laugh when this dude gets the stuffing beat out of him by the lawyers. In fact, I think that Obama might be able to do something when he gets into office. Man, this dude is screwed.

....... I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable. The cop who zapped the dude should not only have to pay for ALL of his medical bills, but they should also have their spines (or at least key parts) surgically removed so they can never use their back again, and hopefully never walk. If possible, I'd find it very beneficial to also shunt metal rods into their elbows, shoulders, knees, and pelvis and apply a voltage just this side of lethal. Maybe then they would know not to pull this [cabbage]. :evil:

I concur with most other people: teaching should be for when you're at school or on a school-related trip. Homework should be limited, and in most cases, exterminated. Sleep deprivation and stress are killing this generation, and are holding an axe over the heads of all future ones. I for one vote that homework should be banned in all but a few cases, and even then should be extremely limited. It should NOT take more than 30 minutes to an hour to finish up a full day's worth of homework. If teachers refuse to abide by this, then they can enjoy unemployment without tender. I also think that most of what is given, if not damn near all of it, is what is termed as "busywork", which is for all intents and purposes worthless and just an extra grade to stab the students with. I'm willing to do a great deal to make this written into law across the planet. The specific terms should be as follows: 1) All classes with few exceptions are to not assign homework of any kind which could bring down a person's grade. They may use it as a means of boosting student's grades. 2) Those classes which are allowed to use homework are not allowed to assign it when it requires a total time to complete which exceeds an hour. 3) Any staff of a school which disobeys this will be given 2 warnings, after which they will be removed from the school and have their tenure pay and any other benefits stripped. They may regain their "buffer warnings" if they don't assign graded work for a time, at a rate of 1 warning each year. Sound about right? And yes, it's strict. Yes, I'm a complete [bleep]. No, I don't care. If it wasn't strict, then these people would just ignore it and they'd still be power-tripping like usual. If you want a barking dog to listen, you have to grab his attention.

I don't even know where the safety is on a gun. So yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that the criminal has a much higher chance of hitting me than I do of hitting him. Hell, I'd be surprised if I can even get a shot off before he's unloaded his entire clip. There IS such thing as a gun safety course. It should tell you everything you'd need or want to know about firearms, and in a way that you'd remember them. One of those, and some practice at a shooting range or something, and you should be able to do fairly well. That is, if you don't factor in the stress of being in a modern version of an Old Western Duel, or having to sneak around to be able to catch him before he draws. As a general rule, if he's already trained on you and you are out of arm's reach, you're screwed. If you are inside of his arm reach, you could disarm his weapon with some rudimentary training and practice. Just remember that the thumb is the weak point of it, and for the love of God do NOT pull forward until his finger's off the trigger!

Just how screwed up is your country? I imagine most people wouldn't say what you are unless if it's very VERY corrupt in the national government.

And I repeat... The legality may not deter people from acquiring these products, but the demand certainly does. Low demand of a product means less availability. Just like drugs. And how do you suggest we do that? As long as people know they exist, and as long as they remain the most effective way of killing somebody, they will 1) be desirable for the criminal element and 2) be found in abundance and very wide variety on the black market. There's things on it in America that even some NATIONAL MILITARIES don't have access to. Want to bet someone can find an effective weapon on it?

What good is the axe/bat/knife, or whatever? You are still injuring/killing them. Which brings me to the freaking point. A gun is no more of a weapon than any of those. Convenient? Sure. But a reduction in gun crimes only leads to an increase in others. And as I type (progressively) I am starting to wonder about this thread in general. Like many things in OT, we only observe the extremes on either side. Either gun-toting Billy Bobs or anal Commie Liberals. The fact is that the majority of gun owners in the US use them safely, do not keep them loaded, and only use them for recreational or sporting use. The preferred weapon for suspicious noises in the middle of the night is indeed a baseball bat or a golf club. Do not assume that every person who owns a weapon is going to necessarily grab it and start shooting when they see a burglar. Hell, the only reason I have that pistol in the nightstand is because it's a display piece and I don't know where to show it yet. As I said previously in my post, sure, it may injure/kill them, but why make it so that it's GOING to kill them? Why make it so overly efficient that it is guaranteed to kill them? Why not just take ALL the guns away? Have cops use tasers except for high ranking officers, that way we wouldn't NEED defence. As has been said before, how do you intend on disarming an entire NATION'S worth of criminals without suspending the requirement of a search warrant? Until you can answer that, and GUARANTEE that people will not be able to buy/make them without being caught post-haste, all you're doing is creating a unsafe environment for everybody, and turning a bunch of people who would otherwise be upstanding citizens into criminals. It'll be somewhat similar to the alcohol prohibition back around the tail end of the 1900s. Except that few people who had just a bottle of moonshine could kill a whole mess of people inside a few minutes.

This........ This sounds fun. All they do is bang it against a locker? Also, don't they worry about if it might fling shrapnel in case of a remake of an old Marvin the Martian skit? I might add this to my senior prank ideas. Also, if you get the reference WITHOUT using a search engine, you earn 50 million free internets. \ You have to bang it hard enough against the edge to make a hole in it. Once the hole is made the spray just comes out. It's also more of a smoke grenade than a frag. :P Awesome. If someone were to set off somewhere around 10 of these in a school built for ~800 kids, how long would it stay even if the doors were opened? All the windows in the school are sealed shut, mind you. I'm thinking of coupling this with a smoke bomb for a senior prank.

Sadly, you're right. The best way to show this exists in both parties is to look at the reactions of the crowds in both McCain's and Obama's speeches from November 4. In McCain's speech, the crowd literally GROWLS every time he says the words Barack Obama. My sister thought there was a wild dog outside, and she was IN THE OTHER FREAKING ROOM. This shows up on a lesser degree in the Obama speech as well, but he's capable of quashing it later. Either way, it shows just how divided the country is right now. Articles like both what Limbaugh and megakiller32 are why it's in that state, among other things. Hopefully, by the time that Obama's done with his first term, this will ebb away at least in part. However, I know that there's more than a few people who'd want to cause it to end prematurely. There's always a chance, but here's to the Secret Service being some of the best professionals on or off the planet. [optimism][worry]

You don't have to kill people if you're in the military, dontchaknow. Probably more people inclined to go on a killing spree in prison than the military. Yes (to the not killing people if you're in the military part), but the military by definition is a violent institution. If I were to take on a noncombat role, I would be supporting an institution which destroys lives. Does the place you live in have police? If so, do you pay taxes? If so, you support a violent institution. The military, when employed by a country which values the freedoms of others, by definition is an institution that helps lives. What destroys lives is watching innocent people suffer and doing nothing. This is true for all involved; the suffering for obvious reasons, the people commiting the atrocities (they condemn themselves for when people with a sense of justice find them), and the people watching and doing nothing. In my view, if you don't take action to prevent any act when you are able, you condone it. While some present uses of the military aren't exactly favored (the starting of that Iraq mess, most recently), it is nobody's mistake that the military does good things to try and outbalance it. This is what I support when I say I support the military, because the military will always act when people are suffering, when allowed to. Really, my taxes are not under my control, as they are all automated. I have no choice in the matter. My employer automatically takes them out of my paycheck, everything I pay for the tax is already included in the price. Really, it's my employer paying my taxes, the seller giving my money to the government. As for the rest of your argument, it's not so simple. Who's right is it to decide who's good and who's bad? You can't speak only from a US perspective. Most countries have their own militaries and use them to support their own causes. Everyone has reasons. I'm not saying everyone has the best intentions, but many do, at least in their view. Also, if noone had militaries, a military would not be needed in the first place. If everyone were to lay down their arms, atrocities would not happen. I'm not saying it's ever going to happen, but I'm an idealist, and it's what I do. As it stands, militaries only perpetuate the violence. I will have no part in it. To decide whose good or bad is very simple: who imposes suffering on those who do not want to for their own personal gain? And yes, most countries have their own militaries. And yes, if nobody had militaries, militaries would for the most part be unnecessary. However, those who shouldn't have one are the least likely to give theirs up. The reason for the rest of the countries to have one is simple: force equalization. This is explained further in the Gun Control thread, I think the specific post is on either page 3 or 4. And as to the perpetuating violence part, I have one simple thing to reply. If an organised band of people willing to fight against those who would force others into Hell for their own profit doesn't exist, who will?

This........ This sounds fun. All they do is bang it against a locker? Also, don't they worry about if it might fling shrapnel in case of a remake of an old Marvin the Martian skit? I might add this to my senior prank ideas. Also, if you get the reference WITHOUT using a search engine, you earn 50 million free internets. \

You don't have to kill people if you're in the military, dontchaknow. Probably more people inclined to go on a killing spree in prison than the military. Yes (to the not killing people if you're in the military part), but the military by definition is a violent institution. If I were to take on a noncombat role, I would be supporting an institution which destroys lives. Does the place you live in have police? If so, do you pay taxes? If so, you support a violent institution. The military, when employed by a country which values the freedoms of others, by definition is an institution that helps lives. What destroys lives is watching innocent people suffer and doing nothing. This is true for all involved; the suffering for obvious reasons, the people commiting the atrocities (they condemn themselves for when people with a sense of justice find them), and the people watching and doing nothing. In my view, if you don't take action to prevent any act when you are able, you condone it. While some present uses of the military aren't exactly favored (the starting of that Iraq mess, most recently), it is nobody's mistake that the military does good things to try and outbalance it. This is what I support when I say I support the military, because the military will always act when people are suffering, when allowed to. Oh, and penguingeek, that sounds a great deal like current US Military Basic Training. It would be a great benefit to have everybody go through it who can. That is a brilliant idea. Just one catch: what if someone is put into it who can't handle it to the end?

I can only say one thing: TIF, find a good :facepalm: smilie or I will. -.-

More people = more cars = higher likelyhood of incidents Might as well say that america has murdered more cows for food than any other nation. What defines 'violent crime'? And was it worth sacrificing those 11k for however many could have been killed by those 'law abiding citizens'? Im sure those other people legally owned their guns. Want to defend yourself? Learn a martial art, get a security system or remember that the best victory is the fight not fought. Or maybe you could get a similiar system to what we have over here, we call it the police. Alright, seeing as to how I'm already here, I'll answer these. 1) a violent crime is a crime where something is done through force, be it from a fist, a baseball bat, or a rocket launcher. Anything that would involve hurting another person physically who didn't agree to it is a violent crime. 2) Those 11,344 people killed have a 95% chance of it being by an illegally obtained gun, and also likely because they either didn't have one, were caught by suprise, or done something stupid with their firearm. 3) Martial arts are only good when the person is within arm's reach. It is very easy for someone to blow you away from 2m off, take your stuff, and run like Hell. Unless if you have some means of fighting from a distance which you can get ready quickly, you're screwed. 4) Security systems only work when you're in a place with electricity, willing to shell out 100$+ a month, and are dealing with a very stupid crook. Aside from bells and whistles, the actual security is a couple minutes away. In that time, they could kill you, load everything not bolted down into a van, and take one of your children or a girlfriend along for a little "happy time" later. 5) We do have police. We are also realistic. In order for the cops to react to an armed criminal, they must be aware of the armed criminal. Chances are that by the time that YOU'RE aware of him/her, you will be unable to notify the police. Even if you could, they're not a heartbeat away. It's a similar problem to the situation above, only you don't have the added benefit of someone whose capable of reacting calmly to tell the cops your location. This can buy the armed criminal more than enough time to do whatever they want. Any more complaints?

Mandatory enlistment, outside of a wartime necessity, is a lot similar to communism in one regard: sounds good on paper, but SUCKS in implementation. If someone's being forced to do something they do NOT want to do, then they'll likely do a piss-poor job of it, regardless of what they're doing. Also, in the case of the military, those people will likely go AWOL in a combat situation, effectively crippling the military. Sometimes, bean counting does not fit into the military life. This is one of those times. However, this doesn't mean that a lot of people shouldn't be in the military. On the contrary, I think a lot of people should at least experience a year or so of it. The way that this should be accomplished, though, is through rewards. One possible example: when you retire, you get a certain percentage of your taxes back, based on how long you served, plus other benefits (like GUARANTEED best medical care on the market when you need it). Of course, the last one might be hard to implement, but it shouldn't be impossible. All that would be needed is for the government involved to persuade one of these health care people to provide for their people. Think something like that would boost enlistment rates?

I believe that anything is possible, if you were to put forth real effort to doing it and in a proper manner. However, I think that MOST of these TV personalities can't in reality do anything. The people who can are likely not finding the idea of the publicity which it would garner very pleasant. Imagine how some nuts in various groups would react? For example, take the Pyrokinesis power. This works (I think) in a similar manner to Telekinesis, only it increases the temperature of a localized area rather than picks up/moves an item. Now, as a similar thing, remember that a somewhat specialized exercise in yoga allows the user to raise/lower their body temperature by as much as 10 degrees Celsius. All that would have to be done for someone to learn to use Pyrokinesis is figure out how to amplify this and project it. And for those who think it's just a mechanical byproduct and localized to the body, might I remind you that if that were true, Olympians would probably be upwards of 15-20 degrees hotter than the rest of us? Prove that to me, and I can see that. If you want me to go further, then I will, gladly. I could probably describe a way to implement a lot of things, if given some time to think it through. ____________________________________________________ Also, in response to Lent's post on the God issue; I thought I was alone on that, really. However, I take it one step further. Most of the religions on this planet have as a main tenet that the delegation should act towards others in a kind manner, regardless of the person. This singular fact, and the fact that a bunch of other building blocks of each religion are similar to each other, make me believe that a MAJORITY of the various religions are somewhat like looking at a sculpture from various angles. They're all looking at the same thing, just from different perspectives. I say this as a Christian, by the way.

You're in New Zealand? Yipe. Thought you were from Europe or North America. :-w [/offtopic] Lochac is, IIRC, Australia and New Zealand. I'm from Oz. Ah. Alright, then. Cool. Think some time you can give me a little in-depth info about how they do combat? You know, equipment, specific rules, match types, ability to add interesting elements (maybe allow random weapons to be scattered around the arena as an example), etcetera? I could think of some ways of sensibly modifying the matches which a lot of combat junkies might find fun. Also, maybe when I get certified to fight and get pretty good, you and me could go at it? I probably suck on a galactic level, but the best way to get better is to fight the strongest people.

You're in New Zealand? Yipe. Thought you were from Europe or North America. :-w [/offtopic] If you were to check the map, I'm in the province of Aethelmearc called the Shire of Misty Highlands. I have yet to go to one of the meetings, but I'm wanting to. I'm very unlikely to be able to get there on my own, which would necessitate me figuring out transport.

Alright, you're probably thinking something like "What in the [bleep] is the SCA?" right now. Well, first off, you might want to know what it's an anacronym for. Spelled out, it is "Society of Creative Anachronism". Basically, it's a recreation of the way things were done in old times (commonly 600-1600 AD, though there's more than a few exceptions), with some obvious modifications (no Black Death, no slaves, etc.). The main focus which people generally portray is anything which had routine contact with European countries during the aforementioned time period, with few exceptions (I expect there's a few Spartans for example somewhere in one of the various groups, as one example). The things recreated include metalworking, brewing, garment-making, equestrian activities (things that would involve a horse), and (likely the biggest draw for the group) combat. There's a bunch of various "kingdoms" scattered across the planet, ranging from the entirety of the US, most of Europe (obviously ;) ), Africa (this one suprised me), and Australia. These are further subdivided into principalities, which basically translate into regional "kingdoms". You should probably find at least a little info on the principality and kingdom you find yourself situated in, if you want to check it out in person. A full description of it can be found at the official SCA website, which provides links to the websites of the various sub-groups as well as some general knowledge you would want to know. Chances are, this isn't the only group of this nature, and I want to hear your personal opinions and experiences with them. I'm personally thinking of checking out my given area's events, which should prove to be interesting. Even better if we have someone on these boards whose a member of one of these groups! Let's hear it! -------------------------------------- Just as a cursory measure, I don't want to see any flaming or other idiotic activities on this post. Just so we're clear; yes, this group tends to wear old-school clothing to their events, yes, they talk in an unusual manner, no, it is not alright for you to point it out as something to laugh at. Thank you.

That's really the best idea. It is NOT hard to get enough points to recharge the thing. If your levels are middle-class (40+), you can probably get enough points to recharge it in a single game, even if you lose. And this is presuming that it costs the same to recharge as to buy straight up.

Yeah, there's really no logical reason for Mary J to be illegal. The only true ones are as follows: 1) Tobacco companies don't want the competition, and will likely suffer major drops if weed is made legal. 2) Government as a general rule doesn't like to lose any power whatsoever over the general public. This might change thanks to President Elect Obama, so don't quote me on this later on. 3) The people who ran the government back when marijuana was made illegal were racist [wagon] who wanted to get rid of the Mexican immigrants. Look how that turned out. t(^_^) 4) The rope-makers don't want the competition, since hemp (another product of marijuana plants, the stocks I think) is very easily made into a good rope, as well as other uses. If I remember correctly, (again, don't quote me on this) the Constitution or some other important legal document was written on hemp paper. What do you think that the renewal of hemp paper would do to the companies who routinely cut down the trees of areas the size of Hawaii almost every 6 months? 5) The pharmaceutical companies would not do well with the competition, either. While I'm not sure of all of the reported benefits, I know that it helps with improving a user's overall mood and makes them hungrier. Have you ever seen an anorexic or depressed pothead? Right now, that's all I can think of. If I missed any, please let me know. Thanks!

Interesting story. However, it might be somewhat bad for the chosen audience. Well, unless if you're already well-known around your school for being somewhat of a homicidal lunatic. Then you can do whatever you wish. Don't drop the soap! \

Solitary confinement is just barbaric. It won't teach them anything at all. Also, I had no idea the U.S. tortures POW's like that. I find that mildly amusing. It will teach them that certain activities are absolutely NOT tolerated. That should be enough. Well, except in the case of people who take pride from their chosen atrocity. Those require a somewhat more permanent reaction. And yes, some segments of the U.S. military do this to POWs. This is a very sad development, but such is the way of a Republican presidency. -.-

What good does punishment do? Instead of torturing prisoners, why don't we try to make them better people? Sorry about the double-post, but I just have to respond to this. While that's a nice sentiment, that doesn't always work. Not all people would be able to do that. Really, there's 4 kinds of people in prison right now. Those who didn't know they messed up, those who did and are repentant, those who don't care about it, and those who take pride from it. The first 2 are viable for your method, as they should be. However, to say that all are viable is naive, and very dangerous. If you try to rehabilitate the last 2 people I said, it will both not work and put people in danger, chiefly because they wouldn't see anything wrong with faking rehabilitation to get out and do what they done again. See the problem?