moviefreakedmind

CatBus said:

You also overlook the genuine need for self-defense in rural areas in which the police can’t get to your property in any helpful time, as well as in cities with terrible police departments and high crime rates like Detroit.

That’s covered under fantasy scenarios.

That’s not a fantasy scenario. So people that live over an hour from the nearest police station or in a place like Detroit where the police response time is almost an hour are just fucked?

CatBus said:

moviefreakedmind said:

If you’re in favor of the government actually confiscating guns from law-abiding owners, there will be a significant amount of violence. A lot of police wouldn’t even enforce such a law.

They wouldn’t be law-abiding if they kept the guns after they were illegal, would they, and police who don’t enforce laws can easily look for more suitable jobs, right? 😉 (snark… kinda)

The complete ban is an ideal end state–I admit implementation isn’t easy and anything in between would be a good start. It could take hundreds of years–no confiscation at all, just the gradual reduction as generations don’t get new guns and the old ones slowly get destroyed. Luckily, the second amendment doesn’t protect any important rights, so nothing’s lost by its repeal. Modern gun ownership is mostly about entertainment, heirlooms, and fantasy scenarios, which can be easily managed via less dangerous means. But with a very rare practical use case of deer and varmints, which is why I’m still fine keeping basic rifles around (Winchesters, not AR-15s). As a Pest Control Amendment, I’m still all for the Second.

EDIT: Admittedly, I agree with the NRA’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which is why I feel it needs to be repealed ASAP. The amendment doesn’t mention guns at all, just “arms”. As written, it applies equally to handguns, machine guns, longbows, halberds, tanks, surface-to-air missiles, nuclear weapons, mustard gas, and anthrax. The second amendment says you have a right to keep and bear all of these things, all because of well-regulated militias that don’t really exist anymore but kinda sorta live on in the National Guard to some degree. With that interpretation, it’s a dangerously idiotic amendment, but frankly the other interpretations I’ve seen seem very preciously crafted with the purpose of reaching saner conclusions, rather than just interpreting it as written. The only thing protecting us from the full impact of this amendment is five justices looking the other way, and that may not last.

I agree with your ideal end game, as well as with the fact that firearm ownership today is almost entirely entertainment and fantasy. That said, the United States’ police force is way to well-armed, which, and this may sound crazier than I think it is, justifies the armed population of our citizenry to an extent. Heirlooms are important; I don’t think anyone’s possessions that they’ve had for decades should be taken away, nor should collections be broken up. Heirloom also implies that it’s an antique, which is important to consider also. It’s only the modern, mass-produced guns that need to be destroyed. You also overlook the genuine need for self-defense in rural areas in which the police can’t get to your property in any helpful time, as well as in cities with terrible police departments and high crime rates like Detroit.

The more epic the movie, the worse it’s handled. That tends to be the rule.

If you’re in favor of the government actually confiscating guns from law-abiding owners, there will be a significant amount of violence. A lot of police wouldn’t even enforce such a law.

The key is cutting down the sheer number of guns in the country. There are so many that it’s relatively easy to track guns down through illegal means.

I’ve considered a psychiatrist, I think therapists are a little shifty, and I suspect that my parents want me to see one, but I’m too independent and past the age of them being able to do anything about it. They haven’t actually said anything like that but they say I’m “unreasonable”. The problem with a psychiatrist is that he’d try to push meds on me, which I’d hate to have to take.

It’s not irritation, it’s more of an overwhelming rage.

Yeah, the SE is different in that there is no indication on the packaging that the “Original Trilogy” isn’t original. For those unfamiliar with Bond, expecting the Bond collection to include the weird Casino Royales and Never Say Never Again is about the equivalent of expecting the Star Wars saga collection to include the Holiday Special, the Ewok movies, and the weird Clone Wars movie. Seeing as how the films are listed and the number of them included is spelled out on the packaging and description, this lawsuit is frivolous.

I do remember that, and that might be it. I’m usually more angry about things than nervous. I’ve also been very paranoid since I was about 16, which might be part of it.

The same technicality can be applied to the terms pro-life and anti-life. It’s also true in a most literal sense that pro-choice people are against certain lives. If you’re in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion for reasons other than rape or medical conditions, then that is even more applicable. I don’t try to spell it out in a way that accuses pro-choice people of being anti human life because it’s incredibly cheap and unfair to do that. Pro-life and pro-choice are and have been the descriptors for a long time. Yes, neither are good when you want nuance, as one implies that the life of a fetus with minimal development is more important than the life of a pregnant woman who could potentially die from complications of giving birth, and pro-choice, without any explanation, implies that you’re in favor of a woman’s right to abort a healthy, viable baby as late as the third trimester. Most political labels are devoid of nuance, but they’re easy to say and slap on idiotic bumper stickers so people like them. Both also imply that their opponents have malintent (i.e. pro-death and anti-choice). My policy is, instead of assigning yourself a label, just explain what your position is.

For example, I’m in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion in the cases of rape, medical complications, and in general for the very early stages of development, but am otherwise opposed to it; I also think birth control and sex education should be much more emphasized and available to prevent abortion. Was that so hard? No. It’s way better than just saying, “I’m pro-life,” and hoping that everyone knows what I mean.

Not only is he associated with him but he’s being actively promoted and supported by Molyneux, seeking fundraising from his audience.

As for Hillary, I think most people who didn’t see her as the lesser of two evils just didn’t vote rather than vote for trump. My point wasn’t to defend them but rather to question why people are still defending Hillary.

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Is a boy more into sports because he has a penis or because his Dad liked sports and the other boys liked sports and they all looked down on him until he liked sports?

I’m guessing it’s the latter.

What about transgendered people? When they are young, aren’t they given the clothes and the toys of the gender everyone things they are and they sometimes reject them and prefer the toys and cloths of the other gender?

Often, yes.

Not sure what your point is, unless you’re just agreeing with me.

My point is that maybe there is something about what gender your brain is that affects what you like that don’t like. You said that maybe the only reason a boy likes sports is because his Dad did and how other boys would look down on him for not liking sports. If what you said is true, then a person born with the mind of girl but the body of a boy would still end up liking sports and the same would true of toys and clothes, yet we know it doesn’t work like that.

Newsflash: Some girls like football and Star Wars, some boys like My Little Pony Friendship is Magic. A person with the mind of a girl but the body of a boy absolutely can end up liking sports and “boy” toys and clothes. You may think it doesn’t work like that but I guarantee you are wrong.

Newsflash: More boys than girls like football and Star Wars, more girls than boys like My Little Pony Friendship is Magic.

But that doesn’t give someone license to outright tell girls that they aren’t employed in certain jobs because get-over-it. People can like what they do or dislike what they don’t. But that doesn’t excuse general meanness and bad attitude.

The point is, people should be made to feel welcome and respected in all walks of life, no matter their quirks. This man’s memo trivialized and belittled the women at his workplace. It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t agree with his employer’s cultural viewpoints. He should have kept his mouth shut.

If anyone here still feels bad for the Google guy getting fired, you should know that he recently did a long interview/discussion with Stefan Molyneux, the extremely popular with the alt-right commentator who has admitted to wanting to force women not to be involved with men he claims are “assholes” and has stated that evil is passed down through the mother, even joking that “it’s jewish.” Molyneux has also admitted that he wanted to murder his own mother. He believes that race is associated with IQ and intelligence and encourages his listeners to disown their families for political reasons. This is the man that the so-called “victim” of Google’s diversity policy has chosen to align himself with. So, if you think that Google firing this guy was unreasonable, please elaborate on why that’s the case.

CatBus said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Trump’s victory is almost entirely to blame on Hillary.

I think a teensy sliver of blame falls on the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is a reality that all presidential candidates are aware of, and this is the only time in which the Electoral College not aligning with the popular vote wasn’t due to crookedness. Her decision to ignore the rust belt and most of the swing states cost her the presidency.

That’s a very favorable description of Hillary. She was a horrible candidate. There are plenty of people who hate Trump that hated Hillary. Trump can be horrible, but you can’t treat people that saw the 2016 election as a contest between two hideously intolerable candidates (in different ways and to different extents, I know) as though they’re simpletons that watched too many Alex Jones videos. Trump’s victory is almost entirely to blame on Hillary.

It isn’t the standing itself that’s the problem, it’s the being upright part that gets me, even if I’m sitting down. My reaction isn’t exhaustion, it’s a thing where I feel like I’m going to collapse, or sometimes a breathing problem where I think I’m suffocating, but I’m obviously not suffocating so it has to be in my head. I’ve had other issues ever since I was a teenager in high school that I’ve been told were in my head too, but this one is a little freaky since it’s actually affecting my physical capabilities.

I can still see why people voted for him against Hillary due to the view that Hillary was corrupt and Trump was the lesser of the two evils, but there is no Christian justification for it.

I didn’t use neurological the right way. I meant that I think it’s in my head.

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/evangelical-adviser-trump-nuke-north-korea_us_598a62b3e4b0449ed5066531

Robert Jeffress, head of the First Baptist Dallas megachurch, told CBN on Tuesday that a biblical passage in Romans allows rulers to use “whatever means necessary ― including war ― to stop evil.”

He said:

“In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un. I’m heartened to see that our president ― contrary to what we’ve seen with past administrations who have taken, at best, a sheepish stance toward dictators and oppressors ― will not tolerate any threat against the American people.”

Jeffress also said:

“When @POTUS draws a red line, he will not erase, move, or back away from it. Thank God for pres. who is serious ab. protecting our country.”

Ok then.

One could say the same about opposing communism. …So, the Vietnam War was a good idea?

You know, America doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to militarily forcing American policy on foreign countries against leaders we don’t like. I seem to recall it usually makes the natives mad.

It does do that, although it has worked from time to time. Just ask Germany and Japan.

The ironic thing is, if we were to follow Romans 13 to the letter, the American Revolution would be sin.

" 1 Every [a]person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except [b]from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore [c]whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves."

Not only that, but the French Resistance against Nazi Germany would’ve been a “sin”. Even nonmilitary stuff in the United States like the Civil Rights movement and civil disobedience or draft dodging would be sins.

The Korean War is generally seen as a disaster, and it was horridly costly in terms of lives, but I bet South Korea is grateful not to be a part of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Ghostbusters: Yay! 😃

Ghostbusters 2: Yikes! 😦

dahmage said:

WRONG thread!

also, this is why streaming still sucks. everyone keeps moving crap around.

I agree that it’s obnoxious and a big pain in the ass, but having access to the three main streaming sites (Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu) still only costs about 25 dollars a month at the most.

chyron8472 said:

What I want to know is–and I’m asking the conservatives and/or Republicans here–why in God’s name conservatives voted for Donald Trump. Not necessarily against Hillary, as she has more than enough obvious reasons to be thoroughly disliked–but in the primaries.

I know people liked him as a protest candidate against the status quo, but voting for a protest candidate is one thing; voting for Donald Trump is something completely different. So many people knew for the longest time that he cares little for anybody but himself, he’s short tempered, uneducated, listens to conspiracy theorists, and is generally out of touch with the common man.

This is a legitimate question, not a rant nor a flamebait.

Because the vast majority of people are full of shit and don’t care at all about what they claim to care about. Yes, I really do believe it’s that simple.

That’s a really depressing picture knowing what we’d actually get!

moviefreakedmind said:

This isn’t related to emotion but I want to post this in a serious thread. I’ve been having an extremely difficult time remaining standing or even upright for longer than about 2 or 3 hours at a time for a while. I’m young, thin, and pretty well exercised and that’s not to say that I’m the portrait of good health, but that’s to say that there’s no easy explanation for this issue. It’s affecting my ability to do my job, which (obviously) concerns me.

Quick update on this for the nobody that cares, but I think that it’s just neurological and not an actual health problem, which I guess is a good thing.

Not to be a downer, but based on your posts about your circumstances, they will never change, assuming you don’t take action to live independently that is.