Lurker > Grendel_Prime

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/2f9f8528.jpg

Ozmose posted...

They just recently proposed putting armed security at every school. Can you guess who shot it down? And yes, there were many errors. If you actually read what I posted, you would have seen that I pretty much bullet pointed them. You were literally proposing bans on things that are already banned. You wouldn't consider that to be an error?
It looks to me like you're not actually interested in discussing this anyway. You asked me a question, demanded I answer it, and when I provided you with a very thorough answer you completely disregarded it. I think you're just here to bask in the sound of your own voice.

It's not surprising that a proposition for providing armed security in schools was derided, given what we saw in Uvalde with a heavily armed response to a single shooter, and given that research suggests armed security will do little to prevent school shootings.

I wasn't proposing banning anything. I was merely mentioning how certain aspects of firearms/firearms ownership are the target of regulation/bans, while a full-on ban on gun ownership is a fringe stance. So no, I wouldn't consider that an error. Again, the point wasn't the examples provided so much as it was to highlight that a full 2A repeal is a fringe stance. This is why your bullet points are off-base and warrant no further discussion, because you've missed the point.

If you can absorb the point I'm making and make a salient argument worth responding to, I'd be happy to discuss things further. But you continue to focus on how I worded something, even after I clarified for you.

Initially I had responded to your claim that there's no give-and-take, which insinuate that there's some give from 2A defenders. There is not. Proposals like armed security in schools fail to address the problem, which is an overabundance of firearms in the hands of people who are I'll-equipped to own them.

Ozmose posted...

First off, lets address some errors.

There were no "errors". You completely missed my point. I'm fully aware that some of the examples I'd listed have already been banned, been up for consideration for being banned, or had already been through the courts. That wasn't my point.

The point I was making is that while certain "features" or accessories have been the target of regulation and restriction, only the fringe extreme has called for an outright ban on firearms and/or repeal of the 2nd, while most 2A defenders resist even moderate regulation.

It's utter nonsense that there are no concessions because "the other side isn't willing." There are no viable solutions coming from 2A defenders. And they refuse to sit down at the table to even begin to entertain discussing a solution that proposes regulations.

The only ideas that come from 2A defenders are half-baked, non-starter "solutions", at best. Nebulous, undefined things like "address mental health" with no guideline or plan to achieve that. "Arm the teachers!", which is laughable. If anyone who suggested arming teachers ever met with or spoke with any teachers, they'd realize the vast majority want very little to do with guns, let alone with bringing them into the schools.

Now answer my question, please:

Grendel_Prime posted...

The bans are largely for bump stocks, high-capacity magazines, trigger adapters, fully automatic firearms... You have some (Beto O'Rourke, for example) calling for the ban of certain types of firearm (AR-15). Very few outside of the extreme fringe are calling for an outright wholesale ban on firearms.

Considering this, and addressing your point about "actual" give-and-take, where is the give from 2A defenders?

Ozmose posted...

Most of the regulations proposed are banning something. People might be willing to negotiate if there was some actual give and take involved

The bans are largely for bump stocks, high-capacity magazines, trigger adapters, fully automatic firearms... You have some (Beto O'Rourke, for example) calling for the ban of certain types of firearm (AR-15). Very few outside of the extreme fringe are calling for an outright wholesale ban on firearms.

Considering this, and addressing your point about "actual" give-and-take, where is the give from 2A defenders? They fight every regulation. Red Flag laws, background checks, etc. Even "mild" regulation is pushed back upon by the ardent defenders of 2A. There's no negotiation because those 2A defenders are opposed to even reasonable checks and balances. That's not a fringe stance, either. That's the standard line in the sand.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/0/9/AAA-LjAAEZ75.jpg

Why do you think that most guys on this site don't want children....and it seems like it's at a percentage that is much higher than the avg. population?

This is loaded question is founded in toothless hyperbole. Not only that, but it's baseless conjecture, because your supporting statement:

Have seen some topics on this site asking users if they want children and it seems the numbers that don't want them is higher than the general population, though.

is anecdotal.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/4/6/AAA-LjAAEYeu.jpg

https://youtu.be/5Y9DYGiDL1o

potdnewb posted...

"An estimated 8 million Australians (41%) have experienced violence (physical and/or sexual) since the age of 15, including: 31% of women and 42% of men who have experienced physical violence. 22% of women and 6.1% of men who have experienced sexual violence."

How many mass shootings does Australia have, for comparison?

BUMPED2002 posted...

As shocking as it may seem, some people view Hitler as a hero.

Same kind of people who would take issue with a gay Superman.

https://youtu.be/7L4JnAuW00k

NickMullen posted...

who's alt is this

BlackScythe0 posted...

I wonder which alt this is.

Schmen.

Ozmose posted...

I didn't post a link because I can't remember where I read it.

Convenient.

Resorting to insulting my intelligence and trying to belittle me for what you perceive as youthful navet might help to mend your bruised ego, but you've still provided no sources for any point you're attempting to make.

I'm certain I consume a fair amount of propaganda with my news. Which is why I always read news from multiple sources and cross-examine anything that seems worth delving into. Add to this that I'm former military myself. My brother, cousin, and many friends are still serving. There's no good reason to believe this mystery unnamed Colonel of yours would lie any more or any less than Gen Milley or any other high-ranking member of the military.

But please, continue to deflect and avoid providing any sources. By all means. Shows how well-informed you are.

Ozmose posted...

Feel free to rub it in my face when the Ukrainians crush Russia. Ill gladly say I was wrong. How many of you are willing to eat crow when it goes the other way? Ill take note.

I'm not claiming victory one way or the other. Nothing final can be written in history books until the war is ended.

Note the quote from Gen. Milley as stating Russia has "lost" in the context that they're military limitations have been exposed and that they've become a global pariah. He isn't saying the war itself is wholly lost. He's on record as commenting on the "significant" casualties being absorbed by both countries. I'd hardly consider that a "win" for Ukraine.

https://www.businessinsider.com/milley-russia-has-significantly-well-over-100000-casualties-in-ukraine-2023-1

You've provided a non-answer, by the way. You appear to be avoiding divulging a reputable source for the commentary you've alluded to from some mystery retired Colonel.

Ozmose posted...

I read it in an interview of a retired US Colonel

An active US general is on record as saying Russia is losing the war "strategically, operationally, and tactically."

https://www.businessinsider.com/top-us-general-says-russia-has-lost-the-ukraine-war-2023-2

If you're going to use vague sources to substantiate your argument without providing links to your claims, then turn around and accuse others of succumbing to propaganda, you may want to take a good look in the mirror.

Most official western accounts of losses in the Ukraine-Russia conflict are quick to stress that their intelligence figures are estimates.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russias-casualties-in-ukraine-near-200-000-11675509981

Even then, they tend to corroborate one another. UK and US intelligence for example you can put in the same ballpark. None of the more dependable ones that I've read are estimating 8:1 losses favoring Russia. Unless they're counting civilian deaths among those figures I fail to see how they'd reach such numbers. I'd like to see your source for this if you care to provide one.

To be clear, counting civilian deaths as military losses would be a clear example of this supposed propaganda you're claiming others are eating up. Might want to check what's on your own plate before lobbing accusations.

Ozmose posted...

This makes me miss the 90s. Back then you could just slap the stupid out of him and nobody would so much as question it. We're devolving as a species.

Bit of an overreaction to jump straight to violence over something this trivial. Maybe speaking with the cousin could sort it out before resorting to such smallminded behavior.

PS5 comes with Astro's Playroom which is surprisingly fun.

What is "supposed" about an official dictionary entry?

BUMPED2002 posted...

I said Super heros should not be transgender and they shouldn't so sorry if I hit a nerve.

Can you not read your own words in the pic? Your exact words were "Superman should be a man not a gay dude."

That's homophobic.

But you doubled down with transphobia in the rest of that quote, so congrats you've made both homophobic and transphobic statements on this board.

BUMPED2002 posted...

Uh I beg to differ in that I have never made any such comments

Yes, you have.

if you have proof that I have then point that out to me.

Sure thing. Here you go:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/8/2/AALv4zAADxTe.jpg

BUMPED2002 posted...

If you have a problem with me then bring that to my attention if I've done something to you.

Can't speak for Cacciato, but you've made several homophobic topics and comments in the past, and to the best of my knowledge have never offered contrition for those sentiments.

Given that, I'd have to agree with Cacciato here.

Ozmose posted...

I think the issue here is that intent is it's a very difficult thing to solidify in a court. I think it could probably work out fine for Pence, but with Biden's case, they're going to need to go back decades for some of this stuff. The defense can say it was a simple mistake and it was just missed/forgotten, but the prosecution can just as easily argue there was fell intent, which will ultimately lead to a serious deep dive into his history. It opens up the opportunity to go fishing, and if he's like every other politician, there's no shortage of dirty secrets that could be equally undoing for him.

That's an awful lot of speculation and "coulda-woulda-shoulda", which doesn't fly in court.

Working with the current facts, there is evidence that Biden, Pence, and Trump all held on to classified documents improperly.

Two of them, Pence and Biden, cooperated with investigators and turned over everything that they were aware they had, and continue to work with officials to ensure everything is recovered.

To quote captpackrat:

captpackrat posted...

Trump didn't do this. He held on to the material. He lied about having it. He tried to hide it. He claimed it was his to take. And investigators found empty classified folders, meaning the contents were likely missing. There was no "Oops!" here, his behavior indicates this was clearly NOT an honest mistake, this was criminal mishandling of classified material.

Ozmose posted...

I don't even like Trump dipshit. Just because you're a devoted Biden fart sniffer, doesn't make everyone that isn't a "maga nutjob".

Sorry, but if one downplays the more severe aspects of Trump's actions in his case and claims Biden did "essentially" the same thing - as you've done in this very topic - then they're echoing the talking points of those "maga nutjobs" and can no longer claim they lack bias.

I've seen you attempt to walk the "both sides" line several times on this board, but your comments betray that sentiment. You may not be a full-on "maga nutjob", but you clearly have more overlap with them in your ideological Venn diagram than some other posters here.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/4/3/AAA-LjAAEH-b.jpg

captpackrat posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/9/6/AAQwHjAAEHq8.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/8/8/AAA-LjAAEHsY.jpg

Correct, not argumentative. Just informational.

What I stated is true. There is no argument. I'm offering up information. RMP is an option in any state which chooses to offer it, of which there are only a handful currently.

The RMP is an option of SNAP. States need to show there are members of their population who are underserved by SNAP and could benefit from the RMP in order to qualify. Iowa certainly could have a RMP, should they choose to.

Zanglerfish posted...

So... not SNAP which is what this topic is about.

The RMP I'm referring to is a part of SNAP.

Zanglerfish posted...

You know that SNAP cant be used on Starbucks or fast food, right?

I believe that in states that the RM program is running, that there are fast food restaurants that take part.

But again, most states do not have the RMP.

pedro45 posted...

It's a tough system. It's supposed to be beneficial, but obviously people waste it.
There should be limits, but people should also be decent and less selfish.
Just make sure they can't spend that money at Starbucks. those are the worst and most entitled people

SNAP isn't accepted at Starbucks.

In fact, very few states are included in the restaurant meals program currently. And those that are included have strict guidelines for who is eligible and where they can spend. It's geared towards helping the elderly, disabled, and homeless. Restaurant chains have to apply and submit to certain criteria to take part in the SNAP RMP. I could be wrong but I believe Starbucks is not currently one of the restaurants which takes part.

SNAP generally allows for groceries. Not hot meals at restaurants, outside of the states that take part in the RMP.

Lobomoon posted...

I never claimed to be objective - beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. And I think there is nothing wrong with having an opinion of your own even if it's not 100% PC. Or thinking for yourself for that matter.

You can claim "Opinion!" all you want, that doesn't shield you from from criticism. Opinions are not unassailable, and can very often be flat-out wrong.

Phrasing poll options with "morbidly obese" and "Nuke it from orbit" while posting a photo of a normal, healthy person go to show how repugnant your thinking is.

Jen0125 posted...

Plus some people find heavier people attractive anyways so this topic is based on lobomoons subjective standards

Exactly. And it's perfectly fine for Lobomoon, or anyone else for that matter, to not find her attractive, but this topic is indicative of the toxic beauty standards present in so much media and throughout society.

Jen0125 posted...

She didn't get famous based on her attractiveness. She got famous as a child actress.

This.

Regardless, even if one were famous for being attractive, being judgemental about their weight or body type is boorish, pig-headed behavior.

Zareth posted...

Not enough shown to judge

Shouldn't judge people for such shallow things to begin with.

I cannot fathom how anyone sees welfare or UBI as a net negative. Those who are impoverished or of low-to-middle income will put that money right back into the economy through the purchasing of basic necessities.

As opposed to granting tax relief to wealthy corporations or individuals, who in turn will add to their tremendous coffers and continue to hoard wealth and resources...

Trickle-down economics is a proven failure for everyone outside of those with absurd wealth. It's baffling that there are those who still pound that drum. Baffling.

SoreChasm posted...

Alts accounts are born with original sin.

lmao

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/5/8/AAA-LjAAEF4S.jpg

Ozmose posted...

The facts I'm looking at are the ones that will actually stick in court. You're bringing up stuff like espionage, but there's not a damn bit of evidence of that that would hold up in court. If that's what they want to chase to charge him with, they'll fail yet again.

That you're willing to write off the more severe charges Trump could be facing indicates you do give a shit one way over the other. You're dismissive of the greater charges, yet open to the lesser.

You say the charges won't hold up, but may I remind you that this situation is far different than the failed impeachments under a Republican-run Senate. Those impeachments were not criminal indictments. They were constitutional processes.

The warrant which the FBI utilized when searching Mar-A-Lago could only be obtained with probable cause that Trump had violated the law. The evidence gathered goes toward proving their case. I bring up espionage because at least one of the laws cited on the warrant was drafted under the 1917 Espionage Act.

There's a long way to go for this to work it's way through the courts. Claiming the charges won't hold up is jumping the gun by a lot. Much of this is unprecedented. We just had two insurrectionists convicted of seditious conspiracy. Anything is possible, and much is left to be seen.

It doesn't matter if they fight it or turn themselves in.

It does matter when not turning oneself in is part of the crime, which is what you continue to ignore.

As others and myself have pointed out, if Biden is to face charges for his role in his situation, so be it. He should face charges.

Trump, his staff, and his acquaintances, through their behaviors and actions surrounding this case, have opened themselves up to a litany of other, more severe charges.

So, no. The differences are what's important here. Because negligence and mismanagement, while dire and consequential in themselves, pale in comparison to the accusations of espionage levied toward Trump and his people.

Claim I'm running a narrative all you want. One of us clearly is acknowledging all of the facts in both cases, while the other picks and chooses what facts matter to them.

It's telling how Ozmose and Zeus ignore what has been posted about the *differences* between the two cases, and choose to focus on the similarities and keep beating that drum, echoing Trump's own propaganda techniques...

I've never seen a single episode of Rick and Morty, but I'm aware of it and who Justin Roiland is.

Ozmose posted...

Agreed. On the other end, if they're going to file charges on Trump, Biden should get the same.

The shady part is that this all happened right before the mid terms and they kept it hushed, while the Trump document story was simultaneously being blasted across every form of media in the country.

As others in this thread have mentioned, there is a large distinction between Biden's situation and Trump's.

Upon discovery, Biden's staff immediately contacted the National Archives and volunteered to return the documents. They discovered the documents themselves and self-reported, cooperated, and in the process have actively searched for more documents to turn over, which is in part how they found the second batch. Reports are quoting roughly two dozen classified documents in Biden's possession, though that figure may climb as they continue to search his properties.

The National Archives had repeatedly over the course of months asked Trump and his staff to turn over classified documents they believed to be in his possession, to which Trump went to great lengths to deny having, lie about having, move the documents to prevent their discovery, and flat-out refused to cooperate or turn the documents over. Documents which numbered in the hundreds and included nuclear secrets.

If negligence and simple possession can warrant charges, then yes. Both Biden and Trump should be treated equally and face the same level of discipline.

However, Trump and his staff's actions in their case have opened them up to a whole host of separate possible charges. Some of them very dire.

The two situations share some similarities, but are not equal to each other's.

Ozmose posted...

That particular occasion was referring to an event where a bunch of Nazis held a rally outside a Turning Point USA convention. That convention was a young americans meeting. Primarily grade school and junior high age kids. There was absolutely no connection between the two events, but some people here wanted to play it off like there was. That was my argument. Don't call a bunch of children Nazis because some assholes decided to show up outside and refused to leave when they were confronted. Because I didn't like them picking on children, the nutjobs here somehow equated that to me defending Nazis.

I think I recall the incident you're referring to.

While it's good to see Turning Point denounced Nazism and white nationalism following that rally, when they endorse the same political candidates and share in some of the same political principles as those they are thumbing their nose at, it begs the question of just how far removed from the rally participants they truly are.

Lay down with the dogs and you'll wake up with fleas, as they say.

Ozmose posted...

I told them they shouldn't call people Nazis unless the people are actually Nazis, and they absolutely lost their shit. How very biased of me.

Hard to determine with what little context you've provided. Who were they incorrectly referring to as Nazis?

Not to put the cart before the horse, but I have seen on this board from a handful of posters the incorrect assertion that Nazis are solely defined by their participation in and around the events of WWII. It is wrong to think that we cannot apply the Nazi label to those who carry on today espousing the same ideologies, employing the same symbols, regalia, and mannerisms of Nazis from decades ago. Call a spade a spade.

They may be "Neo-Nazis", "white nationalists" etc, but if they're acting the part, then arguing that they aren't "text book Nazis" is an impotent position to take founded on shaky semantics.

Ozmose posted...

I blocked half of them a while back specifically because they're a bunch of hyper-partisan psychos.

Read: Others refuse to agree with my particular brand of bias and I can't stomach being out-matched and outwitted in an argument so I use the block function to create a safe space for myself.

Sahuagin posted...

you can block it with ublock origin, although getting the right element is tricky

right click it, choose "Block Element...", and then from the Filters choose ##.custom-persistent-icon.ot-floating-button__front

Thanks for this.

Aculo posted...

how is tinykin? i saw phil spencer was enjoying it, ok?

Tinykin is very fun, very chill. It's a fairly simple puzzle platformer, no combat. Just collect tinykins and employ them to overcome obstacles and solve puzzles. For as basic as it is I found it fun and would recommend if you're looking for something mellow to play. Very family-friendly if you have children about, too.

Elden Ring is my GotY, but there were a handful of titles I enjoyed:

Tinykin
OlliOlliWorld
Trek to Yomi
LEGO Bricktales
The Artful Escape
GoW Ragnarok (although it was less impressive than 2018 imho)

Probably others I'm forgetting, but those stand out in my mind.

Going off of Wikipedia release dates, probably Far Cry 3, or Assassin's Creed 3.