Forum posts made by elitfromnorth

Ludicrous. As long as they had a written contract it doesn't matter if it was written on paper made from safran or a napkin from the local pub. As long as it's a written agreement where both parties sign it's valid. That goes for oral agreements as well. If there are witnesses that can say that "Yes, these two were sane and agreed on this" it's valid. It is a typical situation where ideology plays in.

As for the economic part; I dunno how child welfare works in Kansas. Over here it's as long as you have a kid you get some money no matter your financial situation. And what's wrong with using Craigslist? Who knows how much the clinics charge for you getting a kid. Some spend thousands of bucks to get it done, and that's just too big of an expense in short time. It really shouldn't matter in what way they got the kid. They both agreed that he shouldn't have any responsibility on the matter. End of.

Although what always makes me shake my head when it comes to the US; jump across the border and have it done in a shady motel in a different state and it's perfectly ok, while do it in your home it becomes a problem. THAT is what is most ludicrous in this case.

Doubt nukes will be used. As mental as the Pakistani government is, they're fully aware of that deploying nukes will lead to not only India answering with Nukes, but the rest of the world realising that they have a nuclear power who's unstable enough to nuke it. Result; mass scale international invasion where the only object is to remove nuclear technology from Pakistan. And using the nukes will make China really nervous. Who would want an unstable neighbour with nukes? You could really end up with a UN invasion led by China, Russia and the US. Would make for a really interesting scene though.

Can violent videogames make people more aggressive? Certainly at the moment while you're playing it and getting killed at the same spot time and time again, surely the frustration level rises. I know. Will it make you more aggressive over time? That's a difficult question to answer, as it's difficult to say who is attracted to violent games. More aggressive people are more likely to have an outlet through violent games, so I think the studies will be difficult to conclude with a certain answer.

But the question isn't the level of aggression in my book. The question is does violent video games make you more prone to commit acts of violence. That's the issue. Not how aggressive people are. People can still be angry and aggressive without actually doing anything. There's a reason we have the phrase "all talk and no walk".

Besides, if people were actually doing their jobs as parents there wouldn't be a need for a study asking how GTA and COD and Assassin's Creed affect 13yo's. It states clearly on the box, even if it in many countries isn't mandatory, that these games should not be played by people younger than 18. I'm not saying that parents put the guns in the hands of the kids, but if you're so worried that you're kid's gonna be affected by it why the hell don't you have a look at what he's gaming instead of just lashing out. The computer isn't a babysitter, and it's your responsibility to make sure that your 13yo isn't playing GTA or watching porn. And stop having grandma buying games that she doesn't know a thing about.

On another note, when denying kids the game one argument will of course be "But everyone else has it" while another will be "But it's just a game! Of course I know it's wrong to kill people".

And what's a violent CD?

There are a few guys who actually dont have pain receptors in the groin area, resulting in kicks and punches to the groin results in a hard on, but it's rare. The rest of us flinches in pain just from the thought of having them squeezed.

As for spanking and scratch marks, go for it. I love nails. Tying up is good too.
'

The only reason you're not seeing them is because you probably don't frequent any of the multitude of firearms-oriented websites like ar15 dot com and The Firing Line. Many millions of words have been posted in criticism of the subject. The "Tin Foil Hat Brigade" is prominently represented, but trust me, there are thousands of regular people that are now saying, "See? This is precisely WHY we need our 2nd Amendment rights!"

I don't see the NRA or the congressmen advocating the need for guns using that line of argument. Maybe because they know that it has nothing to do with "protecting" yourself against the vicious and mean federal government.

In the US it's almost impossible to get a full dictatorial government or getting right wing fascist governments, simply due to your two party political system. Add to the fact that republican party needs to become more liberal if they're to get minority voters then you have successfully removed any chance for a Hitler type to run your country.

I think I might have agreed to it, but a minimum demand is that I get the drawing I think is the best for my own keeping so I can perv on it later. It also depends where this is. If it's the local college then I think I would oppose it. Call me weird.

Don't think it would be at all possible unless it's semi hard, but like Nudiepants said; where's the fun in that? I would only at best be able to reach the rim and if I got aroused I would get harder and then it wouldn't be possible. Don't think it's anatomically possible.

You do realize that one of the first things the Nazis did when they were elected was pass a law that took the guns out of the hands of their intended victims...

And you have so little faith in your own government that you think that gun control will be a move to either be able to exterminate black people or create a tyrannic dictatorship?

Hell, with the ways things are progressing it would be more "effective" in the way of reducing the number of ethnic people in the US by making sure gangs get a lot of weapons so they can kill each other and the civilians off. Besides, white people are quicker to shout racism than coloured people. We're not stuck in the 60's anymore

As far as cashing in goes in the way this is done, it's really no surprise. Sadly. One person's death is another person's living. People will do all kinds of things, like selling "memorial stuff" to "honour the victims". They just don't say that one of the victims is their wallet that needs to be honoured with cash. The world is getting more and more cynical. Thanks to internet we can perform crimes without actually having to meet the person that suffers in real life. easier and you don't have to be that skilled or gutsy to do it. There will always be people trying to profit off of misery and death. It's human nature. Some see sorrow, others see opportunities.

Don't think I've sat on them, but definetely sat down and found them squeezed somehow in a very uncomfy position.

It's an evolutionary mistake along with a couple of others we have. Most animals has the ballsack fimrly protected inside their body, but we humans HAD to do it else. Fucking pain...

Very unsure if I could go through with an MMF threesome. Considering that my confidence level isn't sky high and that I'm prone to paranoid thoughts I would instead of enjoying fucking my GF be thinking and analysing every sound and thing she does to see if he makes her feel better than I do. Should I come to that conclusion I would probably not fare all that well and feel less of a man. To me it's one of those things I would struggle to recover from no matter how many times she'd tell me that I satisfy her every need. The whole thing would probably be a very bad idea.

But let's just say for the sake of argument that I do have the confidence to go through with it. Would I then be able to have a dude suck me off? Depends on how great I would be able to focus on her. If I was to focus on "there's a dude sucking my dick" then I'd probably lose my hard on and that would be no fun for anyone. But that could only be as long as the dude is out of sight out of mind and not making deep dark moaning sounds...

As for me sucking him off. No way. There's a line and that's well and thouroghly crossing it.

Being taken aboard the ship and anally probed might convince me though.

If more pervs ventured into the Think Tank I bet you'd recieve a whackload of PMs asking you to come aboard their yacht and play with their "probe"

https://iaafmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/media/LargeP/7bfb6705-cd3f-4d93-8c58-4a15d07ccf25.jpg

The New Colgate Cock! Gets you in ways a regular toothbrush can't.

Really?

What's this then? Science Fiction?

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/48/4/1044/

It states in the survey;

Our findings , and the fact that many adolescents play video games for several hours every day, underscore the need for a greater understanding of the long-term relation between violent video games and aggression

in other words they have not made a definite conclusion that video games really do cause aggressive behaviour amongst kids. They saw evidence of it, but one study of one group of kids is far from enough to be able to make the connection. Secondly; how do we know that kids that are aggressive aren't more prone to choosing violent video games? A happy relaxed girl will go play Mario while an angry boy will go play Call Of Duty. Add to the fact that such a study wouldn't be needed if parents actually gave a damn about what their kids do. Next time you're in a shop that sells games or you're near one, go check out a couple of the games in the shelf. Check how long it takes you to see the markings that says what the game contains of violence, language etc AND the recommended minimum age for playing it is. Doubt it will take you too long.

And it's ludicrous to see the arguments being thrown around that you need the guns to defend yourself from the government. Bullocks. You make yourself sound like a conspiracy nut when you say that the government is coming after you. "They're gonna take my guns, then they're gonna take my car, then they're gonna take my voting right!". If that was the corrolation then Europe would be full of dictatorships.

gr8guy2; you are soooo off the mark when you say "Don't call the police if you don't like the 2nd ammendment". The police, or the law enforcement, use guns to do their job; law enforcement, NOT because all of them are really great fans of the 2nd ammendment. It's not the 2nd ammendment that gives them the right to carry weapons. You arguments are so weak they make me firmer in my belief that gun control is the right thing.

I'm saying that with today's technology we'll never know. Technology speeds forward at an increadible rate so when I'm an old man we might be able to travel fast enough to have holidays on Mars(for the really filthy rich people).

The statisics are based on that there's such and such big chance for there to be a planet that can sustain life(as we know it) and there is so and so chance for a meteor to strike said planet with molecules that can form amino acids and so forth. The chances for there being life on one given planet is small, but considering all the billions and trillions of stars and planets in our universe the chance becomes better the more we discover.

That said, a life on a different planet doesn't have to follow the same rules as we do. Considering the diversity of that animals, insects and plants can survive on our planet, in regards to temperature and other conditions, how can we exclude that there is life that can live with much higher or lower temperatures than ours?

By saying there's life on other planets doesn't automatically make it into being creatures with Star Wars technology. It can be something as simple as basic micro organisms that are stuck in some muddy pond in a different galaxy. Also consider the technology that would be required to travel through space. Most of the more earth like planets are millions of lightyears away, which means you would have to travel a whole lot faster than the speed of light to be able to reach it in one generation.

We have barely started exploring our neighbouring planet Mars. We're still not sure if there's something as simple as water on it. Who knows what was on Mars 10 million years ago. And the reason we don't have hard evidence is simply because we're just getting at the technology that's capable of looking for hard evidence.

Statistically with all the stars and planets that is in our massive universe, there is life on other planets. However how far they've evolved and if they've evolved at all is a different that is merely speculation. No one has ever said they have hard evidence on extra terrestrial life.

The arguments you put forth sound like something a religious fanatic would say in defence of the Bible being 6000 years old and that there is no other life than what God created here on Earth...

Jogging on paved roads or sidewalks isn't good for you, no matter how good your shoes are. With great shoes it will only take a bit longer before you start feeling it in the knees and ankles. I even have custom made soles that I put in my shoes, but jogging fucks up my knees straight away, as long as it's on paved roads or sidewalks. Going cross country is much better if you can. The ground or grass is softer to your knees and the terrain will give you a different type of excercise where you may have to use your legs in a different way than if you were to just run on a flat road.

I've deleted stories for various artistic or personal reasons and would like to know I could 'dis-own' stories in the future. I often re-write or throw things away. To not be allowed to do so seems Orwellian and anti creativity. I would have to think long and hard before posting anything again, if I knew I could never change my mind. Otherwise I'd have to delete my entire account and change my pen name as the only way of distancing myself from a story I no longer wanted to represent me, (although I suppose I could always 'edit' all the words).

I appreciate the time and effort Moderators devote to helping us, but If you are going to institute this, please give us some warning...


...Or maybe I just need an explanation of the 'Hide' function. Is it like deciding not to throw my garbage out, just hide it underneath the bed and in the closet?

Pretty much like this, apart from the foul smell and the rats. And if you really want your story removed then all you need to do is send a PM to the right people and they'll zapp it for you. It's not like a situation where "you submit it, we own it!", but it's more to avoid people submitting the same story over and over and over again.

Great how people compare with the prohibition on booze. Good to see that you have such faith in the police, the men and women that go on the job risking their lives every day to make your life safer, that you think they'll be just as corrupt and disorganized as in the 20's.

And for those that want armed teachers: are you guys fucking mental??? What's gonna stop an angry student to hit a teacher from behind, grab the gun and start shooting wild. If you mean locked down in each classroom then keys can be stolen. Don't think the schools will be able to afford biometric scanners. And what's to stop a teacher going postal with a gun he can have right there? For fuck's sake...

Seems like most pro gun people in here seem to be guaranteed that this man had all this planned days in advance and even if there had been stricter rules considering guns he would just have planned this further.

Fact; you don't know whether this was a spontaneous act or if it was planned.

Fact; if this was a spontaneous act he probably wouldn't have gotten his hands on guns if the laws had been stricter, it certainly would have made things more difficult.

Fact; many of these terrible tragedies not to mention those that take "only" one or two lives(which is one or two too many) would have been avoided had there been stricter gun control. Why? Because they are crimes of opportunity, where there's an opportunity to easily acquire a gun.

And as far as Assault rifles vs pistols goes, I guess it goes without saying that higher the calibre and the bigger the clip then the more lethal it is. An AK-47 round at close range will probably tear off a kids arm, making what's usually a non-lethal hit suddenly lethal, compared to a 9mm bullet. In many cases it's only a matter of milimeters that differes from life or death. With a smaller clip, lower fire-rate and less penetrative ammunition lives could be spared. You can't argue against it.

While there may be no proven link between violence in the media and games and perpetrating it on others, I do think that these movies, games, and even some music desensitize people to real violence and the impact it has on real people. Carnage may seem like an extension to a game, with no sense of how it shatters lives - real blood, real injuries, real people.

These people can just as well get their "inspiration" from a book if they're already so fucked that they can't see the difference between fiction/entertainment and reality. Blaming it on stuff that's for entertainment is just looking for an excuse that's easy to condem and regulate. It's easier to regulate and prevent the sales and showing of violent games and videos to kids than it is to stop any human behaviour that might lead to the same problem. If you throw the argument that children are easily affected then it's the parent's fault. Until you're 18 your parents is responsible for you, and they're also responsible for what you see and hear. They usually don't care what the age restriction on games and movies are, they just buy them or let the kid download it on their own. Usually they say "But I don't know anything about computers!", and even if that's true, it's still their responsibility to keep an eye on their kid. Too many use it as a baby sitter. As for lafayette's example of streakers there's a difference between doing something to be famous or get attention and actually killing someone. Besides, in pretty much every game the object is to kill as many as you can WHILE surviving. If this guy was to do a copy cat of a video game he wouldn't off himself.

As far as bringing phsycology in it I'm all for it, because it's the only way. Just because you bring phsycology in it doesn't immediately mean that you bring the question of phsycosis. In the trial after the 22nd of July incident the countries most leading expert in the field went in court and said he was crazy, but he wasn't phsycotic and was therefore able to make rational choises. Phsycology is the understanding of the human mind and why people act the way they do, and if we're to find the cause for crap like this, phsycology becomes a necessity. Saying that a man killing 27 people is crazy isn't wrong, because he is. The question of whether or not he's phsycotic is a different matter.

The difference between gun control and the use of explosives is that explosives require a lot more planning than simply grabbing one of your legally obtained guns and go on a shooting spree. A person that snaps is highly unlikely to start building a bomb, simply because to be able to build bombs you have to be rational in your choices. You don't have to be rational to grab your rifle and shoot someone. Comparing them is ludicrous.

I was just having this discussion with someone on facebook. I think it's fair to reassess gun control laws after this outbreak of violence. But at the same time, I think we need to reassess the possibility that viewing violence also plays a factor. I've never bought into the whole watch violence, play violent video games leads to violent people. It may be time to rethink that. Not a true comparison to use the USA against South Korea and Japan. The societies as a whole are too different. Societal convention is different, in those countries things are still very Paternal and there's less chance of a person acting out in this way.

I'm not sure if violent movies or games are at fault, but it's worthy of discussion and looking into. After so many tragedies, nothing should be off limits in finding a cause.

That's the thing. They have done so much research on the matter and they still haven't found any definiete proof that yes, playing violent video games and watching violent movies makes you more prone to violence. There's absolutely zilch. Sure, it pisses us gamers off more than anything when we lose, but that's our competative instinct, not our lust for violence.

In most cases the answer will be much closer to the school. As I noted, the columbine kids had been systematically bullied for some time, but in that case they didn't want to admit it. How could the kids that got shot at have anything to do with the cause behind it? They were the victims, so this could under no circumstances be two kids pushed to the brink of their sanity by their fellow classmates that finally struck back against the bullies. That would mean blaming kids, and there's no way we can do that. Our kids can never be at fault at anything.

Even in a strict gun-controlled country like the Federal Republic of German, there hare been two schoolyard amok killers. That's two too many. It's motivate the government to think about regulating how much violance people under 18 should have access to via television, computer games and film.

There have never been any corrolation between exposure to video games and aggression. Sure, there have been cases of people that are completely fucked in the head and goes "I just wanted to see if it was as easy as in GTA", but those are the exceptions. Look at Japan and South Korea. The highest amount of gamers in the world. The top gamers in South Korea are at the same level of fame as top atheletes in other countries. If there was any corrolation between video games and violence then there would be a school shootout once a month in these two countries.

Reason video games usually gets the blame is because it's easier to blame those. Of course they don't mention the fact that you should be 18 before playing that and that game and parents still buy it for their 13yo kid, so if anyone's to blame it's the parents, not the video game makers. And the games are usually more clearly marked what's in them than there are tags on movies. It's just another way to put something demonic that they don't really understand as the reason.

I am not certain if this is a non-sequetor. An economic system is a system. Wouldn't that a bit be like arguing, "Microsoft Windows is suitable for one country, but may not be suitable for another"? It's a system. If the system is applied correctly and it is a functioning model, it should operate within its perimetres well.

I do believe the point you are trying make, is not the system, but how politicians interpret the system and facilitate it. In that case it would be like comparing "Microsoft Windows works well on my computer, but the man over there uses Linux instead, and is happy about it."

I think you're a bit in the wrong here. When it comes to political systems what will be accepted and work is very often based on cultural history. An area with a culture that widely accepts the fact that you are the creator of your own wealth and happyness and that you should not rely on society to give you anything, thus being very individualistic, will have more problems accepting socialism than an area with a culture for always helping each other out.

In the case of the US socialism would have to be implented very very gradually and over a long period of time for it to be accepted, simply because the culture is very right winged compared to other countries that are more prone to going in the socialist direction.

And Buc; that's complete and utter bullocks, untrue and sounds like some propaganda that is spewed directly out of FOX News.

They could regulate it.
Here in the UK, birth control of any type is entirely free and confidential to get. They easily regulate women getting checkups etc, by making it available through dedicated birth control clinics and keep a record. When you return to get more they simply check your history and when you see the clinic nurse or doctor if need be, they do all needed checkups and examinations. In fact they even go as far as posting a reminder that you are due a smear test in an unmarked envelope.

Careful. With your attitude you're dragging American into communism where the big bad federal government regulates stuff

Parents should lose custody. Boy should be institutionalised to get the mental treatment he obviously needs. Sure, young boys can be aggressive, but I think all of us knew from an early age that behaviour like that was not acceptable. Kid is obviously the type that can't be near kids that he can beat the crap out of.

But the police should have a very thourogh look into his home situation. Behaviour like that doesn't just pop out from anything. Monkey see, monkey do(no, that was not in any way meant as racist).

Question; does the 2nd ammendment that says everyone have the right to own a gun specify that you can have any kind of weapon of your choice? And surely there are some restrictions to what you can and can't own as weapons, or can I live in the US and buy my own minigun?

Question; in a state that has age of consent as 18, will a 16-17yo be able to either go to their doctor and get the pill or in the case of this being a law go straight to the pharmacy and get one?

Second, I'm not a doctor but I've heard that there are several complications that is affiliated with the pill and that there are many different varities. So is it so that when you first get the pill the doc looks at your medical history and then says "Yeah, this is the pill you're gonna do" or is it just "I need the pill!" "What colour you want it in?".

Man in China attacks and injures 20+ with knife

Attackers douse four with flammable liquid and set afire.

Man kills teacher with crossbow

Man kills woman with knife, then shoots father with arrow


What happened today is tragic and I'm not trying to make light of the situation. But we are in a dangerous time in society. I truly think that we need to find out what is going on in our society that leads a person to commit such horrible acts. Not the weapon they choose to do it. Why are these people so angry? Who so alienated? Why has no one seen any signs of potential danger from these individuals? There is something deeper going on than "guns". We REALLY need to get to the root of the problem, what's causing so many people to go "postal".

As the above links highlight, any weapon in the hands of the wrong person can lead to the death of innocents.

True, there is a necessity to understand WHY all this crap happens, but you can't dismiss the fact that an assult rifle is a lot more effective as a weapon to kill people than a knife. If a man with a knife is "unlucky enough"(from his point of view that is) to meet someone that has basic knowledge about close quarters combat or there are enough people that jump on him then he will be disarmed. This is a lot less likely with a man walking in with a 30 clip automatic rifle.

Problem is that they will always try to link the reason to something where they can blame what is considered morally wrong by the elders, which is usually violent video games(which has no scientifically or empirical proven cause on violence) or like in the case of the Columbine shooting; Marilyn Manson. Since these accusations have no sense in it what so ever and people are dead scared of asking the very troubling questions(like in the Columbine the kids were severly fucked up after years of bullying, but oh no, the victims can't have done anything wrong at all ever in their life!!!) you end up with what is just another statistic.

I'm just waiting for NRA to have another meeting in the nearest assembly hall to the school and cry out "From my cold dead hands" yet again.

And for a second thought; Breivik who went mental at Utøya last year killed 77 people with a bomb and two semi-automatic weapons, a rifle and a pistol. The deathtolls would easily be in the hundreds had he had fully automatic weapons. There is frankly no need for ordinary civilians to have weapons that are made for war!