Lurker > darkknight109

LinkPizza posted...

Actually, it just said building collapses before you can run back in. But that doesnt mean we know its going to collapse.

The fact that it said that it all informs your response, though. Again, everyone answering this poll knows that in saving the dog they're condemning the baby to die or vice versa.

LinkPizza posted...

The childs parents would also be dead... According to the question

Grandparents? Siblings? Other extended family?

Hell, even if you knew for a fact that the parents were dead and the kid had no other surviving family, saving the child is still the better option.

LinkPizza posted...

If were still talking about this scenario, youd be risking your childs life to save this other child, as well...

If that's your logic, you'd be risking your own child to save the dog too. However, at no point in the question does it say you or your child are at risk from this rescue attempt, otherwise I could at least see the logic in leaving both the dog and the other child behind to ensure your own child's survival.

wwinterj25 posted...

Also if it was my own kid my response would be completely different.

By saying this, you've basically just affirmed your own selfishness.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

TheWorstPoster posted...

Because telling the Russian President that he would have more flexibility after his election, is absolutely no means for controversy?

Not really?

It's impolitic, but Obama was a sitting president stating a matter of facts that did not have any impact on the election - nothing in what he did was in any way illegal. He was not soliciting or accepting aid from Russia, as Trump's campaign is accused of doing. If the Trump tower meeting between Don Jr. and the Russian lawyer went down as advertised, that is absolutely a crime.

See the difference?

TheWorstPoster posted...

There is absolutely NOTHING about Russia colluding with Trump, or interfering with the election, until after the results came in.

You already disproved this point yourself, with video evidence no less, so I see no reason to kick the dead horse any further.

TheWorstPoster posted...

And, once again, you are ignorant, and are making blatantly racist insinuations and assumptions.

No, I'm just restating what the Republicans have done every time they've made one of these laws. Which, granted, was blatantly racist, so you did at least get that part right.

TheWorstPoster posted...

There are numerous forms of IDs, such as driver's license, state ID, work ID, passports, birth certificates, all of which would be considered valid, and at least one of which would be used on a near daily basis, in every day situations involving transactions.

Don't know about you, but I do not have any form of ID that I use on a daily basis.

Ignoring that, though, there's problems with every single thing that you've posted:
-Driver's license: not everyone drives, particularly people who live in cities with good transit systems. Drivers licenses aren't free either, which would risk disenfranchising the poor.
-State ID and Passports: Not universal and not free
-Work ID: Not all workplaces have ID cards, and even if they did there is no QA on them, so there is absolutely no way they would be accepted as valid pieces of ID.
-Birth Certificates: Are not ID cards, what the fuck. There is no identifying information on these cards beyond your name - no photo, no biometrics, nothing. It's a ID on par with a piece of mail that has your name on it.

Keep in mind, voting is a right, not a privilege - putting up financial barriers to voting, no matter how minor, is an infringement on those rights.

More to the point, you're completely ignoring what I've been saying. The Republicans choose what forms of ID are valid and they tend to choose them based on which ones are most likely to disenfranchise voters who don't vote for them. That's not my opinion, by the way, that's directly pulled from North Carolina's Republican-created Voter ID law which, as previously mentioned, was overturned for being - wait for it - really fucking racist. That's why I find your accusations of racism so comical - you're completely missing the fact that the party you so adore is committing far worse right under your nose, yet I'm the racist one for explaining it to you.

Want a Voter ID law that works? Create a national ID card, issued free of charge to all valid voters. Bam - problem solved. Except that will never happen because Republicans and the far-right wing of their party hate national registrations, even though the Social Security has been used as a (hilariously flawed) version of this for decades to get around conservatives' obstinance.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

TheWorstPoster posted...

But of course, you don't mind that Obama did this:

Not even close to the same thing, but nice try.

TheWorstPoster posted...

Also, Trump was not asking Russia to find Hillary's emails. He said it could have been "anybody", anyone from Russia to somebody in his bed.

First off, the fact that he's talking about Russia on a video published in July of 2016 completely obliterates your original argument that Russia was a boogeyman cooked up only after the election, which was exactly my point.

Secondly, in addition to what he said in that video, he tweeted this:
"If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!"

Which is pretty hard to misconstrue.

TheWorstPoster posted...

Because you are insinuating that minorities are incapable of obtaining IDs to begin with, even though virtually everything you do requires an ID.

I take it you don't actually know all that much about voter ID laws.

When lawmakers create Voter ID laws, they get to choose what constitutes a valid piece of ID. When it's Republicans doing the picking, they typically pick things like gun permits (as gun owners are more likely to be Republican voters) or even something like a driver's license. That might not seem controversial, but the simple fact of the matter is that minorities - especially those in urban areas who vote strongly Democratic - are much less likely to own a driver's license than rural, white voters.

Scream racism all you like, but your efforts would better be directed at the party trying to disenfranchise minorities and other groups that don't vote for them. That would be why, for instance, an appeals court struck down North Carolina's Voter ID law due to the way it - court's own wording here - "targets African Americans with almost surgical precision".
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

TheWorstPoster posted...

Sure. Go with the one guy who was 100% wrong in the previous election results

Dan Hopkins made no predictions on the 2016 election that I am aware of, which you can see if you click his author name on that page.

TheWorstPoster posted...

but only to perpetuate the lie that we want voter ID laws because we want to disenfranchise minorities

Are you a Republican lawmaker? Because if not, you don't have a basis for saying why "we" want Voter ID laws.

Here's the thing - I suspect most people, on both sides of the aisle, would be in favour of a proper, robust Voter ID system. The problem is no one is actually proposing that and every time the Republicans get a chance to put one of these laws in, by sheer happenstance it happens to disproportionately affect voters who generally vote Democrat.

But please, tell me again the non-partisan reason why Texas considers a handgun concealed carry permit to be a valid piece of ID but not a Student ID card.

TheWorstPoster posted...

when in reality, it makes YOU sound racist by even insinuating that to begin with

In what way do you incorrectly think that makes me sound racist?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

TheWorstPoster posted...

Also, Voter ID laws could also prevent another "Russian Collusion" accusation.

Not really? The idea of Russian Collusion has nothing to do with illegal voting. The overwhelming consensus is that, regardless of what the Russians did (and regardless of the actual collusion with Donald Trump's campaign team), they did not succeed in directly altering vote totals through hacking or other subterfuge (whether they indirectly influenced them via the spreading of fake news stories is a far more debatable subject, with the general consensus being "yes"). Voter ID laws would have done nothing regarding this issue.

TheWorstPoster posted...

(which was manufactured, and was a fake controversy which appeared only after the election).

Wrong again.

Remember how Trump got in hot water for asking the Russians - on live television - to go find Hillary's e-mails? This was a live issue long before the election and trying to allude otherwise is revisionist history at its worst.

Hell, Obama was informed of this and wanted to blow the whistle on it - to that end, he asked for Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell's support in presenting a united front against Russian interference. McConnell, being the human shitstain that he is, refused and told him that he would paint any accusations of Russian interference as a partisan attack against the Republicans, which is fucking ridiculous on multiple levels.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

TheWorstPoster posted...

You do realize that what you just said was racist and has absolutely no basis in reality, right?

Wrong.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-know-about-voter-id-laws/

Specifically, go read the part under the header "Voter ID laws disproportionately disenfranchise minority communities."
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

TheWorstPoster posted...

It's hard to prove, only because of how it is done (voting under dead people's names), not only for illegal aliens, but those voting more than once.

If it's hard to prove then how do you know it's being done, particularly in numbers large enough to actually affect the outcome of elections?

That's like me saying "The Republicans obviously stuffed ballot boxes to get Trump elected. I don't have any evidence, but only because it's so hard to prove."

TheWorstPoster posted...

This is why we need Voter ID laws. If India forces Voter ID on its citizens, why can't we?

Because the Republican party is paradoxically for Voter ID laws (almost entirely as a means of disenfranchising demographics that typically vote Democrat, like college students or minorities - witness how Texas's laws consider a handgun license to be a valid piece of ID, but not a Student ID card) but against the infrastructure that would actually make Voter ID laws work like they're supposed to.

Most countries in the world have a National ID card to get around this problem, something that Americans - right-wingers in particular - are violently opposed to because it's Big Brother Watching You or some nonsense like that. If the US ever bothered to implement this system - a free ID card automatically issued to all adult citizens who are eligible to vote - it would solve a lot of the headaches. Instead, because no such system exists in the States, when Voter ID laws are crafted, they are almost inevitably done using carefully cherry-picked ID substitutes to exclude voters that the lawmakers don't want voting, which is not how that's supposed to work.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Dmess85 posted...

Because they were not on the SNES... they were on the SFC.

Technically Seiken Densetsu 2 was released on the SNES (as Secret of Mana)

Judgmenl posted...

There is no difference

Sure. Except for the fact that they look different. And have completely different cartridges that are incompatible with one another. And have different releases.

You know, little things.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Blighboy posted...

Libs: Illegal immigrants don't vote for us we swear

Not to intrude on your rant with logic or anything, but there's a pretty gaping hole in your argument that tells me you may have not thought things all the way through...

Blighboy posted...

Also libs: Leave the entire wall unguarded lmao

I don't know of any liberals who think the wall should exist in the first place, given that it's a hideously expensive and wildly impractical "solution" that doesn't even satisfactorily address the actual problem, given that the majority of illegal immigrants aren't coming in via a dangerous crossing from Mexico, they're arriving legally with work or travel Visas, then overstaying their allotted time.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

kind9 posted...

In this hypothetical situation you presumably don't even know the building is about to collapse so it's not fair to equate saving the dog with killing the baby.

Yes you would and, therefore, yes it is.

Of course you know the building is about to collapse - it's listed right there in the question. It's what informed the answer of everyone answering this poll. If the question was "Your apartment is burning, which would you save first: baby or dog?" - that would imply a possibility of going back and saving the other, while still allowing for the risk that you might not have enough time to do both. In that case, going for the dog first is at least slightly more defensible.

That wasn't the question asked though - the question asked was, in essence, "Choose which one dies: baby or dog". And a disturbingly high number of people care more about their own feelings than another human life.

kind9 posted...

I don't care that the baby is human, humans are animals too. There is no inherent sanctity in a human life that should make a rando baby more precious to you than your loyal companion.

That's a really sad opinion, bro.

Question for you, though - if there's no inherent sanctity in human life, would you be OK with killing people - say, maybe poor people or condemned criminals - and using their meat as a food source? I mean, we do that with cows and pigs and chickens and fish, and you've already said that humans are animals too, so that argument seems to allow for this exact situation, unless there's some nuance you've left out of your description.

kind9 posted...

I guarantee you people would be more likely to save the baby due to social pressures rather than their own feelings.

Sure - and by the exact same logic the people going for their dog instead are basically saying that their own comfort takes precedence over the grief and anguish of a parent losing their child. Which is all kinds of fucked up.

If we're comparing someone who is caving to social pressure versus someone who is literally willing to put their own selfishness over one of the most helpless forms of human life there is, I'd say the first one is far, far more morally defensible.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

The closest I ever got is when I played a setting where it technically didn't exist (Birthright), but the GM liked it as a monster, so told us OOC that, at least in theory, it was somewhere out there in the world. We never heard a whisper of it in-game though (granted, none of us ever got anywhere close to being strong enough to take it on).
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

TheWorstPoster posted...

This is only temporary while the real one is being constructed.

And will be guarded at all times.

And Mexico is going to pay for it, right?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

"No way to prevent this," says only nation where this happens regularly

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I've played a fair amount of DnD, but despite the spot of notoriety the Tarrasque enjoys in the DnD pantheon, I've never encountered it personally, and neither have any of the guys I usually game with.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

The baby, because I'm not horribly selfish.

I loved my pets, back when I still had some, but there's no way you could possibly justify letting a child die if you had the opportunity to save it.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

None, because I refuse on principle to buy DLC. It has become a horrendously manipulative and abusive system, which was the exact sort of thing being warned about 10 years ago with Oblivion's horse armour and pretty much everything predicted back then has come to pass.

The only DLC I've ever downloaded was either free or included as part of a GOTY Edition.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Pfft, that's nothing. Hot women in my area want to meet me practically every time I go online, and even when I'm on vacation they follow me to wherever I'm going. It's uncanny.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Revelation34 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Because it's not just for diseases and it does studies on injuries and non-disease-related disabilities all the time?

Then why is it called Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and not Centers for Disease Control and Injury Prevention?

I have no idea - you'll have to ask them.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Revelation34 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Largely because it's semi-illegal to do so, and you can thank the Republicans for that.

Back in the mid-90s the Republicans threatened to defund the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention unless they stopped funding research into firearm violence, injuries, and deaths, and wrote an amendment mandating the same into a 1996 spending bill - it has been in force ever since.

Democrats have attempted several times, including three times in the last five years, to remove the amendment, all without success.

Well that makes sense. Why would something that's for diseases be dealing with something that isn't a disease?

Because it's not just for diseases and it does studies on injuries and non-disease-related disabilities all the time?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Not necessarily the words, but just the melody.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zeus posted...

It was a Disney-Pixar joint venture, wasn't it?

In the sense that Pixar is a subsidiary of Disney now, yes, but all Pixar films would have that asterisk behind them.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

MisterXiado posted...

I love how the media loves to conflate suicides (with guns) with murders, to grossly inflate their narrative. But we're not allowed to dig into why nearly two orders of magnitude more men commit suicide than women.

Largely because it's semi-illegal to do so, and you can thank the Republicans for that.

Back in the mid-90s the Republicans threatened to defund the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention unless they stopped funding research into firearm violence, injuries, and deaths, and wrote an amendment mandating the same into a 1996 spending bill - it has been in force ever since.

Democrats have attempted several times, including three times in the last five years, to remove the amendment, all without success.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zeus posted...

Disney movie

Zeus posted...

Up

Um...
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zeus posted...

There have been at least a few articles dissecting the "just a comedian" excuse that Jon Stewart and his ilk falls behind when challenged. Like it or not, guys like Stewart and Oliver *are* media rather than just comedians. Colbert was somewhat more of a gray area, but he still ran a news program until leaving it for a late night show host which is more in the comedy camp.

....you're not seriously calling The Colbert Report a "News Program", are you? Because it was even less of a news show than his current gig.

Again, these guys are not trying - and never have tried - to inform or educate, they're trying to make people laugh. That's what separates them from actual news shows.They're not trying to give the most accurate representation of the day's stories, they're trying to give the funniest representation of them.

OhhhJa posted...

Be that as it may, they are pretty much strictly politically based shows.

Well yeah, there's obviously a partisan bent there and no one would deny that. But, again, it's comedy - if you're providing your opinion, rather than reporting the news, you're allowed to be as partisan as you please. Fox News has a bunch of people doing the same, just minus the comedic angle.

OhhhJa posted...

Its basically just like any other news outlet with comedy sprinkled in

It's not news, though - that's the entire point that I'm trying to get across. News is an attempt to report the facts of current events, as accurately and without bias as reasonably possible. At best you could say they're akin to an editorial or opinion piece, but even then it's a strained comparison given that editorials are usually done with the idea of expounding on and/or adding context to the news.

OhhhJa posted...

That's cool and all but dont pretend that either side is above insults and mocking people because clearly they arent

I've never pretended this is true, because it plainly isn't, especially in this day and age. That's like arguing that only one side's voters are violent - it's simple not true (and a dangerous view to hold, I might add).

Honestly, I don't really have a problem with rank-and-file people lobbing insults at each other. It happens, it's often classless, but harmlessly so and we move on afterwards. I do think that elected officials - especially those in as high a position as Trump - should be above such pettiness, and I hope that particular trend dies (or at least diminishes) with his presidency, but this is the world we live in right now...
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

TheOrangeMisfit posted...

But being funny is and I've never seen them do that either.

You should watch their shows sometime, then. They're pretty funny.

OhhhJa posted...

What does this have to do with being a sex machine playboy? Did you even read the comment I was responding to dude?

I mean, he had an affair with a porn star in the weeks after his son was born. Then he had an affair with a different one. And that's not even his first brush with infidelity.

I really don't feel like googling Donald Trump's sex life to find specific examples, but trust me when I say he's been painting himself like he's God's gift to women for 30+ years now.

OhhhJa posted...

Ah yes, its leftist media's favorite thing to hide behind when challenged! I'm just a funny man! I dont have to worry about irresponsible journalism!

Neither Steven Colbert or John Oliver are "the media". They are comedians. Neither of them are journalists, both of them reject that label, and both have separately reacted in horror at the idea of being treated as a news source. Their job isn't to report the news, it's to provide funny commentary on the news (Colbert) or do research pieces on serious issues while dressing them up with comedy (Oliver). Their primary goal is not to inform, it's to make people laugh.

Acting like these guys are media journalists is kind of like suggesting that Steven Wright or Larry the Cable Guy are journalists and should therefore vet their routines with a higher degree of journalistic integrity. Which is plainly ridiculous.

OhhhJa posted...

But it's not like making fun of physical or mental attributes of trump are limited to leftist funny men even though that's where many get their news from.

Yeah, when people are narcissistic megalomaniacs without a shred of humility, people are going to take some delight in knocking them down a peg or six.

And this is pretty rich, given Trump's lengthy history of giving everyone he doesn't like mocking nicknames and joking about them, even going so far as to mimic a journalist's disability for laughs. If you want to get on your high horse, maybe direct your withering gaze a bit further to the right.

Zikten posted...

I wonder if he even likes his wife. some people say

Because if there's one news source I trust, it's "some people"!
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

joemodda posted...

Could you elaborate on what this 'truth' is?

Any time someone claims they got banned for "telling the truth", I've learned that 99% of the time it's code for "was an opinionated flaming asshole".
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

So fight bullying with bullying?

Yeah, more or less. I mean, Colbert and Oliver are comedians - "being nice" isn't in the job description. Their entire raison d'etre is to make fun of powerful people. Every politician for the last 50 years, on both the left and the right, has had to deal with that and Trump is the only one thin-skinned enough to scream about it.

OhhhJa posted...

Also, I really dont see any indication that he actually does this tbh

Have you ever listened to him speak? Ever heard him bloviate about how he has the best words and the best people and is the greatest everything ever?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

Pure speculation. Those guys use any kind of news like this about trump to make jokes. Little hands, mushroom wiener, orange skin, etc

Sure, because Trump has made that sort of thing a part of his brand - he still likes to pretend like he's some kind of sex-machine playboy ultraman, and not an overweight septuagenarian.

I mean, I couldn't see them making fun of that if it was, say, George W. Bush who released news like that, because that was never a core part of Bush's identity. Trump? Yeah, they probably would make fun of him for it, but Trump routinely brings it on himself.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

Zangulus posted...

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

Krazy_Kirby posted...

i thought you needed an actual amount of money to sell (usually a dollar is used).

if it was $0 then that isn't a sale, it's a gift

It was sold for stock in a company that never went public.

So? That doesnt mean the stock has no value.

yes it does

No, it really, really doesn't.

Shares in privately held companies can be every bit as lucrative as those in publicly traded companies. I have no idea why on Earth you'd think that shares for a private company have no value - like, if someone offered to give you shares in Ikea, would you turn them down?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I pretty much already am hairy all over, but the added stipulation of being unable to cut said hair would make pretty much anyone look awful in a hurry (beards and hair need trimming if you want to keep them looking nice), so I'll take the zero hair option.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

J_Dawg983 posted...

I think d3 killed any nostalgia I had for the diablo series, its a shame how badly overboard they went with preventing trading because people got mad about the rmah. Which is especially stupid because there were tons of people who bought and sold items for cash on d2 and once blizz tries to get a cut of the action, everyone bitches.

I don't know that too many people were complaining about Blizzard taking a slice of the pie; the issue was that they completely designed the game around the RMAH to a ridiculous extent. It affected everything from loot drop rates to matchmaking, where the game would deliberately try to pair you with someone who had an awesome piece of gear that you could use in the hopes that you would run along to the auction house and buy one.

Given that there's been a black market for digital items in online games for yonks' years, I have no problem with Blizzard legitimizing it and bringing it in house and also taking a share of the profits - but that shouldn't come at the expense of game design, and it clearly did with D3. This is exactly why lootboxes are so shitty and why everyone hates them.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Oops_All_Berrys posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Does string cheese count?

Oh.

Um... does cheddar count?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

But in some cases, not all, couldnt changing something for no reason cause you to lose real & current customers?

Of course it could. That's why there's no hard-and-fast rule about it and why trying to make one is impossible (especially given that what constitutes "unacceptably offensive" is a perpetually-shifting target).

It does come down to a personal judgement call at the end of the day.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Does string cheese count?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

GreenKnight127 posted...

I am asking that question. And haven't come to a conclusion about it.

Sure I have - I already said so earlier, by agreeing with the statement "You don't necessarily decide how you feel, but you DO decide how you act."

GreenKnight127 posted...

Of course you could be offended by a team called the Redskins, but why should they change their name just because it upsets you?

Because it's good business sense not to deliberately upset potential customers and limit your ability to expand due to the risk of bad press?

Or, on a less nuts-and-bolts, more philosophical level, generally there's no reason to deliberately make someone mad or cause them pain, so most of humanity correctly identifies it as a dickbag move. If I went out and found a disabled kid and teased him until he was in tears and I wound up in the latest viral video as a result, no one is going to suggest it's the kid who has the problem.

GreenKnight127 posted...

There are countless other people out there who aren't offended by it.

Which means nothing. I'm not personally offended by swastikas*. My family isn't one of the groups that has traditionally suffered under people who parade around with that symbol. But I can recognize that it is tremendously offensive to some people, and justifiably so, given that it was used as the calling card of arguably the most evil regime in the history of humanity and has come to be a symbol of racial oppression, violence, and slaughter on a truly nauseating scale, so I would never suggest those people just *stop being offended*. Their not-too-distant ancestors were butchered under the swastika - it's not disingenuous of them to find its display offensive.

*OK, this is a slight lie, I am at least a bit offended by them, if only because a whole bunch of shitty people have done tremendously awful and evil things in the name of "the white race", of which I am a part, and that symbol is the banner they have used to encapsulate those evils.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

GreenKnight127 posted...

If people are 100% responsible for how they think/feel/react to negative stimuli......then should the people who give negative stimuli ever be punished or held accountable for making someone feel bad, even though those people are ultimately responsible for allowing themselves to feel bad in the first place???

Sure.

I mean, most of the people here aren't in agreement with your statement that people are "100% responsible for how they think/feel" about negative stimuli, only in how they react to it. And, depending on the severity of what was said, holding someone to account for saying something offensive can be a completely legitimate action.

Take the sports team thing, for example. If I found the name "Redskins" to be offensive and insulting, I would be completely within my rights to petition for a change to that name. There's absolutely nothing morally wrong or logically inconsistent with that course of action. The response isn't disproportionate or disingenuous.

To rephrase it in "Freedom of Speech" terms, you're free to make really offensive comments that cause people genuine emotional pain, but I'm also free to call you an asshole in response.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Noop_Noop posted...

you dont necessarily decide how you feel, but you DO decide how you act

Pretty much this.

Honestly, the world would be a much better place if people decided not to be assholes to each other.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

In general? Hit a robin with my car.

Deliberately? Probably a wasp. Can't think of anything bigger that I've killed on purpose.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

DPsx7 posted...

Oh no, I guess that list of reasons why it won't work isn't good enough...

Correct, because it doesn't gel with the facts.

DPsx7 posted...

Must be nice to ignore the truth while making ridiculous claims like 'up to x percent'.

I can't be "ignoring the truth" when what I say is 100% accurate.

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/

Keep trying, kid, I'm sure you'll get me eventually.

GreenKnight127 posted...

Pointing out that America's ethnic diversity plays a large part in our crime is a racist statement?

Wow.

Um... yeah. I'd think that was pretty obvious. Claiming that America would be better if it weren't for all those "ethnic people" running around is racist, bro.

And wrong, as I already pointed out. Other countries with the same - or higher - amount of ethnic diversity as the US do not have the same soaring murder rate.

GreenKnight127 posted...

I'm guessing you are also one of those people who thinks that securing our nation's border and enforcing LEGAL immigration is also racist.

Strawman argument on an unrelated topic.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

DPsx7 posted...

Up to 90 could mean only 9.

Pretty sure there are more than 10 people in the US, brah.

Reason I said "up to" 90 is that it depends on the poll and the question asked. The 90% one was asked about stricter background checks and the closing of loopholes (like the "gun show" loophole that allows prohibited buyers to circumvent most of the security checks that are supposed to stop them from getting guns), which an overwhelming majority of the population backs.

DPsx7 posted...

You just don't have a clue about any of this.

Says the guy who hasn't bothered to back up any of his arguments.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Muscles posted...

You brought up Chicago

You mean in Post#25?

That wasn't me, brah.

Muscles posted...

So if that's the problem then why doesn't surrounding states/counties/cities have a worse problem than Chicago, or even just as bad of a situation?

They do. Ever seen the gun stats for St. Louis? Worst city in America for gun crime and it's not even particularly close - their gun death rate dwarfs Chicago by several times over. Indianapolis and South Bend, Indiana have almost identical numbers to Chicago.

On a state level, Indiana has far fewer gun laws than Illinois and more gun deaths. Michigan has fewer gun laws and slightly more gun deaths, although the difference is not as pronounced. Wisconsin has almost identical rates of gun deaths, despite having fewer gun laws.

Again, Chicago is not the argument winner you seem to think it is.

Muscles posted...

Stop moving the goal posts

You're the one insisting that places with fewer gun laws have less gun control - something you haven't posted a scrap of evidence to support, I might add.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

BADoglick posted...

They keep choosing the latter, and it's clearly not working.

How is it not working? They won the house, which was about the ceiling for how well they could reasonably have expected to do in this election.

They were never serious contenders for the senate because the map was incredibly bad for them. Short of a clean sweep on defence and stealing a seat or two in ruby-red territory, it was literally impossible for them to take the senate.

Moreover, if you think it was the Democrats running on identity politics and scaremongering, you might want to have a listen to some of the statements the Republicans were putting out prior to the election.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Muscles posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Muscles posted...

I know Chicago isn't number 1 in murder rate, but they still have a huge gun problem that wasn't solved by gun control

They're also, as I mentioned, surrounded on all sides by areas with far looser gun laws and have no effective border with those areas, so yeah, that's going to have an effect.

But there is less of a gun problem in those areas that don't have as strict of gun control

No, there isn't.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/states-with-strict-gun-laws-have-fewer-firearms-deaths-heres-how-your-state-stacks-up.html
http://fortune.com/2018/03/20/gun-laws-gun-crimes-state-gun-regulations/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/21/states-most-and-least-gun-violence-see-where-your-state-stacks-up/359395002/

States with fewer gun laws consistently have higher rates of gun deaths than those with tighter gun controls. Alaska, Alabama, and Louisiana are three of the most gun-friendly states in the country and they also have the highest rates of firearms deaths. Not far behind are Mississippi, Oklahoma, Missouri, Montana, and South Carolina, all of which have few restrictions on gun ownership.

The states with the lowest levels of gun violence? Maine, New York, Hawaii, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, all of which have much stricter gun laws.

This is exactly why it's important to look at trends and not just shout out "B-but, Chicago!" whenever gun violence is brought up.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Sequiro posted...

Well that was my point. They didn't get the senate because they screwed themselves over.

No, they didn't get the senate because they were never going to get the senate and we knew that as far back as 2016. The map was legendarily unfriendly to them - maybe as bad a map as any party has ever faced. They had to defend three times as many seats as the Republicans (26 seats held by Democrats were up for election vs. just nine for the Repubs) and a lot of those seats they were defending were in states won by Trump, sometimes by huge margins.

To win the senate, the Dems would have had to hold onto every single seat they already had, and take Arizona and Nevada. Or, if you acknowledge that North Dakota was always a lost cause, you'd need to add in a win in at least one seat in Texas, Mississippi, Wyoming, or Tennessee. Even at the absolute nadir of their popularity leading up to the midterms, nether of those situations was feasible. The reputable pollsters never wavered in saying that the senate was likely to stay Republican. About the best you could say is that, for a while, it looked like the Democrats had some momentum and had a good chance to keep things close, but they were not polling strong enough in key races they absolutely had to win if they wanted to take the senate.

The upswing is that the senate map in the next two elections looks much friendlier to Democrats (they are defending half as many seats as the Republicans in each), so their odds of retaking the senate will look much better in 2020 and particularly 2022.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Dikitain posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

Insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result.

Exactly. This is why if you flip a coin and it turns up heads you can safely assume it will always come up heads on every subsequent flip.

If you are using the exact same force and motion and doing so under consistent environmental conditions, then yes you can.

Exactly. That's why you should never elect the exact same political party (assuming, of course, the exact same conditions as you voted them in the first time and counting on nothing changing in terms of who else gets elected, what the population believes, and, of course, what's going on in the world at the time) and expect different results.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to writing up a report on a physics simulation I just finished assuming spherical cows in a vacuum...
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

DPsx7 posted...

You're the only person who thinks it helps.

Up to 90% of the American populace agrees that tougher gun laws are needed.

I haven't asked them, but I'm pretty sure they think it helps too.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zeus posted...

Insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result.

Exactly. This is why if you flip a coin and it turns up heads you can safely assume it will always come up heads on every subsequent flip.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Muscles posted...

I know Chicago isn't number 1 in murder rate, but they still have a huge gun problem that wasn't solved by gun control

They're also, as I mentioned, surrounded on all sides by areas with far looser gun laws and have no effective border with those areas, so yeah, that's going to have an effect.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Muscles posted...

You just need to look at Chicago to realize that strict gun control doesn't work

I love it when people cite Chicago, because not only does it completely ignore the obvious counterpoint (that gun control isn't going to work when the area it is applied to is bounded by other jurisdictions with much looser gun laws and no effective border between them), but it also proves that the person arguing it hasn't actually glanced at the numbers lately.

Chicago isn't even in the Top 20 cities in the US by murder rate, instead clocking in around the mid-20s.

Muscles posted...

It's like people don't want to open their eyes and see what's actually going on, but i'm sure it'll help this time despite not helping when it's been tried before

It has helped, though. That's why a lot of people advocate for it.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zeus posted...

Given that the way that the national debt has been handled, budget deficits are effectively meaningless right now because we have an obscene amount of credit available.

The more debt is piled on, the greater the amount of tax revenue that has to be diverted to interest payments to service that debt and the greater the impact will be.

That's not a dealbreaker, but running sky-high deficits now, during a period when the economy is roaring and sound economic policy would involve paying down the debt, is economic lunacy.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!