Azdeus
-
Posts
1293 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Azdeus
-
-
-
Good work on not explaining it for the rest of us ignorant and lazy people.
Yeah, was a bit tired and forgot to include the link. But it's when you pinch someone in the bottom.
That's weird. Those books are where I first heard the term as well!
Haha, nice! I would've thought it was a common saying. Might be more of an american thing maybe?
-
2
-
-
Today I learned what it means to "goose" someone, for some reason or the other I've never bothered looking it up before, mostly because the only time I came across it was in the wheel of time books. My memory of it is that it was literally translated aswell, wich does'nt work.
-
2
-
-
It's not bad, but I really like the last line from Thor best; Here take these drachma for your eyes, when you get to river Styx tell your threeheaded b**** I said hi!
The Ghostbusters vs Mythbusters was pretty weak though.
-
1
-
-
-
I expect them to be very enjoyable, but light on subtext. But overall I expect them to be a win. JJ Abrams knocked me for six with Fringe.
The only thing I really don't like is the way people are complaining about a black stormtrooper in the teaser trailer. WTF is wrong with people? Stormtroopers wear helmets all the goddamn time. To quote Bill Hicks they could be bright green, have nine ***s and an elephant's trunk for all we know. The only thing we actually know about them is they can't shoot for ****.
I guess they expected him to be a clone of Jango Fett.
This is the only reason why I reacted, when I saw it I actually blinked twice. We know that Stormtroopers are supposed to be clones, but they might've abandoned that after the end of Ep VI or they've retconned it.
I really, really think that lightsabre hilt is stupid though. Not just any stupid, but a proper Jeremy Clarkson "sssstUpid".
-
You are a: Communist Authoritarian Non-Interventionist Bleeding-Heart Libertine
Collectivism score: 100%
Authoritarianism score: 50%
Internationalism score: -33%
Tribalism score: -100%
Liberalism score: 83%
Good fun
-
Talking about Dark Heresy games while waiting for an elevator with strangers in earshot is perhaps not the best idea. Though I guess telling a tale of us torturing some elderly couple and then shooting their mutant baby with a shotgun was not the best idea (we were talking about cases when you make the DM give a "WTF" expression)
What are you talking about? It is the best part of playing PnPs! :D
-
http://www.pcgamer.com/elite-dangerous-will-no-longer-support-an-offline-mode/
Elite: Dangerous finally launches on December 16, but it won't release with an offline mode. While the functionality was promised during the space sim's initial crowdfunding campaign, David Braben writes in a new development blog that it's not practical due to the studio's efforts to keep the universe consistent for all players.
Backers must be a bit annoyed.
****. Atleast I did'nt back it and I'll save myself some money.
This sucks, I was really looking forward to playing that game, I've been dying for something like it for ages.
-
Today, after months of "personal affairs" attended to, I returned to the Obsidian fora. Hope everyone is well, I missed this crazy place.
...I see I missed the PoE beta start. Don't want to spoil myself, but I'll have to at least check it out a little.
...the only game I've tried in the past 6-ish months is Borderlands Prequel, and I wasn't very impressed.
...my black kittah is still adorable, despite his fetish for my feet and leaving torn paper shreds everywhere.
...hubby and I seem to actually be heading for early retirement. If you'd told me 15 years ago that this was even remotely possible for us, I'd have laughed.
You've been missed! =)
-
Hahaha! They almost make it sound as if one is a pedophile XD
-
Hope you get a handle on it quickly Hurlshot, good luck.
I've been taking turns between wich end of me ejaculates at the toilet while trying to drink as much water as possible. I hate being sick.
-
Total Biscuit; Ethics in Games Media; Stephen Totilo of Kotaku comes to the table to discuss
Was just posted, so I have'nt listened to it through and through yet. -
Babies crying, chalk on chalkboard, nails on chalkboards, cutlery on porcelain, metal cutlery in metal pots (Though steel on cast iron is fine for some reason), static noises/white noise drives me insane aswell.
-
In other news...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/megan-mahoney-teacher-sex_n_6022546.html
Damn, seriously. Don't know what to write other than that she is kinda hot and I'd totally let her sexually abuse me. Especially back when I was age 16. It would have been like the holy grail or something. Especially because when I was in school, our teachers had been like 100 years old.
-
^ One of the ten percent found.
-
1
-
-
Severe depression and bad luck is giving me a hard time and I need a break from the Internet, and everything else.
So, see you in a couple of months, guys. Ah, I hate departures...
Take care Wol, see you later!
-
Azedus, please, don't hold back, its on-topic and I'm open for discussions like that. Just remember that my time is very limited at the moment and my response time might be long-ish.
Only because it's you, and you asked me so nicely! <3
Laws are only for the lower classes. Also outfitted? What the hell? It should be everyones free choice. If you don't like guns, don't get any. Freedom of will.
Laws are for everyone, even the rich - it just does'nt hurt them as much when it comes to monetary compensation. My point of outfitting everyone is that there will always be poor folk that can't afford such luxuries as firearms, if you want to remove that rich/poor divide you would have to distribute weapons to everyone. It was also meant to serve as a strawman example.
The police is not responsible for your own safety, neither is the fire brigade responsible to protect your house from fire. You are responsible for those things, police and other emergency institution are for damage prevention and investigation, they usually arrive after something happened.
I was born with the right to bear arms just as I was born with the other human rights I mentioned, but people who call themselves leaders dictate which right I may exercise because of fear and selfish reasons.
But this doesn't make it any less of a right. People in Russia are born with the right of choosing their sexuality, but they can't. But this doesn't make it any less of a right. Self defense with a modern and capable weapon is a right.
The police are responsible with protecting you, you should ofcourse make efforts like using good locks and alarms to give police time to get there, just as firealarms are there to wake you up in the middle of the night before a fire becomes an inferno. Protect and serve.
I'm pretty certain you were born with bear arms, but I digress, if it is a right to bear arms, should criminals and mentally ill people not have them too then? It is afterall a right, and not a privilege. And that right shall not be infringed... People need to be licenced, deemed worthy and fit to own something as dangerous as a firearm, and doubly so if you want to use that weapon for self defence - people don't react well when surprised or stressed.
Comparing firearms ownership with sexuality is silly though, you'd have an arguement there if you were actually born with a pistol instead of a hand.
Read the text again, the law was designed that people could defend themselves against any threat, a totalitarian government that enslaves its people included. Now if the law only allowed people to own old and inefficient weaponry it would not make much sense, no?
Your sniper rifle would'nt help against drones, airstrikes and tanks that the military has, the only real protection you have against the military is a safe social environment where the military has nothing to gain from tanking over the country and where information is free and available to everyone so that soldiers and police can not be decieved.
Having an full auto capable rifle or machinegun won't help you, but it sure would make for interesting gang wars.
I'm not saying there are'nt some stupid laws around, especially here in Sweden, but people need to be licenced and guns checked to reasonable limits. I don't mind someone wanting to go hunting with an AR-15, could'nt care less, but there is no need for that person to have an M4/M16.
What a joke. People get killed all the time before the police can arrive at the scene, thats why there are so my robberies with homicides. Read the news.
Where I live the police needs 15-20 minutes to arrive, robbers can kill me 10 times in that time, and this already happened here a couple of times. I'm sure they called the police.
Yeah, I also live in a rural area, and a couple of years back some people were brutally murdered in my municipality. Brutally enough that the police that responded has PTSD. And he was a gunowner. It did'nt help him one bit.
That does'nt mean it's wise to allow people unrestricted access to weapons just incase they might be able to get to them before they are surprised in their sleep. And it'll more likely lead to an escalation of violence, where robbers need to get guns to defend themselves. It'll lead to more shootings instead, with the likelyhood of innocents being harmed having increased.
What a load of crap. No, they committed those crimes because they were completely insane bloodthirsty numbnuts. The guns neither enabled nor told them to kill. Breivik killed people with a bomb before the massacre, so should we outlaw explosives now and everything that could be used to make a bomb like gasoline or fireworks? He also drove there by car, should we outlaw cars that could transport bombs? Actually that wouldn't be a bad idea, gun related deaths are hilariously minuscule compared to traffic deaths.
If you are afraid of being killed by a gun think again, the chances to die in a car crash are a thousand times higher.
Bottom line is, insane people always find ways to hurt people, what needs to be banned is people that are insane. I'm very certain that Breivik would have found other ways for his massacre, or do you think he would have thought ''Oh no, I can't own guns, well, there goes my plan of killing dozens of Untermenschen.''.
China has a zero-gun law, yet that hasn't stopped terrorists. They use edged weapons and, surprise, illegal weapons.
I've heard a lot of criminals don't care about laws.
I thought the three exclamation marks would indicate irony, but I guess I should've added smileys or something.
But, still, Breivik shot and killed 70 people on Utøya, with, if I recall correctly, a Ruger Mini-14 and a Glock. His legal firearms, that is. He was more deadly with his firearms than his bombs, they injured more, but his shootings brought the most victims by far.
I mainly pointed out these people because from what I remember they used legal firearms, wich in my opinion points to that people need to be reevaluated for their firearms licence more often and have psych evaluations, at heavilly subsidized prizes. And not to limit the magazine size or types of firearms, or similar silly ****.
Explosives are licenced wich is why he could'nt use 1000kg of TNT but used less efficient homebrew explosives wich kept the explosion smaller. The real kicker? Imagine the result of his shooting if he had to actually do the same with the firearms, build them from scrap parts.
Breivik wanted to get full auto weapons from the eastern bloc, but he did'nt succeed in that for some reason, so he went and bought legal firearms instead. He did'nt car-fu 70 people to death, because he had much more efficient was of ending their lives. Like headshots.
And yes, I'm a thosand more times likely to be involved in a car crash (infact, I have been in a few), but I also spend several orders of magnitude more time around cars.
And yes, criminals does'nt care about laws but they also are'nt stopped by guns, but accidental deaths in families and heat of the moment kills are lessened by gunlaws.
Of course not, but it makes it easier and its a nice demonstration how politician think when banning things. Its always to their own best, they don't care about the people. Hitler raved about Germany being the first civilized country with strict gun control, selling it as a huge in crease in safety. Those who support gun bans don't give a flying f*ck about increasing the safety for the greater good, they have other more selfish reasons despite what they tell you.
No, I know that many people do actually think they are doing it for the greater good, they have a different viewpoint on it than you - they don't trust people to handle firearms and they don't see the need for guns. To them it's just a weapon, a tool for destruction with no value to civilians whatsoever. All of my friends have this viewpoint, they don't see a need for their existence at all and that they are only dangerous to society, and while I may come across as strict to you - I'm nothing compared to them.
I can see and understand both sides though.
From everything you wrote I agree with only one thing: a mandatory mental health check before anyone wants to own a weapon, its a good thing. The problem with this is you'd have to have mandatory mental health checks whenever anyone wants to buy something that might endanger the lives of other people.
Flammable or combustible materials, cars, knifes or edged tools, fireworks, chainsaws..... people get killed by those things all the time.
It would quickly turn into a bureaucratic nightmare.
I'm glad that we can agree on that atleast
I agree that it would, but when it comes to many of the examples you list they are nowhere near as potentially damaging as firearms. When it comes to big amounts of flammable or combustible materials, purchases of these do draw attention to themselves, knives and axes has more use as tools than as weapons, same with chainsaws. I do agree that many drivers should be forced to redo their licence tests every now and then though, 'cuz damn...
Though as you say, it would turn into a bureaucratic nightmare, so I'll stick to guns for now, but without being a psychologist I don't think a subsidized psych evaluation every 5 years or so would be too much.
It needs to be at a tight enough interval that you catch most people before they loose it, but also not so tight that it'd be impossible to keep the system running.
Just for clarification, to avoid any confusion; I want guns and gunowners to be licenced, and evaluated, I don't want civilians to have access to fully automatic weapons or ordnance and I don't want it to be prohibitively expensive either.
-
1
-
-
Woldan already has bear arms, does'nt he? I wonder if they are licenced. Hmm.. Best to amputate until we've cleared this up! :3
The right to bear arms should be a privilege, not a right? Wow. So the right for self defence should be a generous gift from the rich upper class....I mean generous politicians rather than a right any human should have? One that can be easily taken away, like most gifts?
Oh boy, thats exactly the mindset that allows politicians to wreck the World with little to no resistance. The right to own weapons IS a privilege in the European Union and guess what? It gets slowly taken away right now, from the lower classes I might add.
I tell you, I was born with the RIGHT to bear arms just as I was born with the right to human dignity, the right to choose my religion and the right to choose my own sexuality. Access to free water is a human right. Those are not privileges, unless your sorry ass happens to live in a very totalitarian hellhole.
''That 200 year old paper'' was written by the most intelligent and idealistic politicians in the history of the US which actually cared about their people, right after defeating a tyrannic government.
It says: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Because history has shown numerous times that the defenseless will always be at the whim of those who have the force of arms, governments sooner or later tend to go apesh!t on the people who are not wealthy and they expect no resistance from. The first person to employ extremely restrictive gun laws was Adolf Hitler just before he started to get rid of certain sections of the population.I never said it should be for only the rich, or are you suggesting that everyone should be outfitted with a weapon?
It needs to be a privilege, just as driving a car, flying an aeroplane or calling yourself a doctor. People need to be judged sane and knowledgable enough to own a weapon, even more so than other things.
And yes, the government should be able to take away anyones weapons should the person have, say, unstable mental health.
No, what is allowing wrecking the world is money, money from company lobbyists of all kinds. And ignorance, Cecilia Malmström is a good example of that.
Sadly, you were'nt born with the right to bear arms, you were born with the right to have protection by police and by law. You were born with the right to be treated like any other person wether you want firearms to be totally banned or totally free, and the right to say so.
The people that wrote that paper were truly intelligent and remarkably forward thinking for it's time. They were not however timetravellers and they could'nt forsee things like automatic weapons or semiautomatic anti-materiel rifles with an effective range of 1500 metres.
When they wrote that piece of paper their country could'nt afford a standing army and you know better than me the range and fire rate of a muzzleloader.
Not to mention that the fastest transportation at that time was by boat or horse, today we have cars and aeroplanes, and the police response times are, while not perfect, an order of magnitude faster than was possible back then.
It is possible that if the people that wrote the paper were alive and well today that they'd say it still stands, but I actually doubt it.
Breivik, James Holmes and Elliot Roger clearly all committed their heinous crimes because of too lax gunlaws!!!
There are always bad examples of what people can do when the abuse systems and tools. I'm not an expert on history, but I doubt that the result of the holocaust would have been much different even if the gunlaws were more lax.
Edit; Oh, and I'm not going to derail your thread more than this, I've had my say
-
Eh. Pass, I'd rather have strict gunlaws than those kind of crazies having any say. And we don't need a 200 year old antiquated piece of paper telling us what should be done, instead of adapting with the times, we have enough dogmatic religious nutjobs around as is.
I don't mind there being harsh gunlaws, a gun is a privilige and I think it should be, not a right. That said, some of our laws are over the top, especially restricting the guns that you can own once you have a licence. I don't mind automatic weapons being outlawed, the public can have that as a comforter.
-
*Sigh* Unable to sleep, chest hurts too much. My doctor has assured me it's probably from this virus I've caught not too long ago, but I can't shake off the nagging doubt that it's something heart-related even though I know it's exceedingly unlikely with my age/lifestyle/family history and the symptoms aren't matching either. The sadly unavoidable fate of the med student is to descend into paranoia, it seems.
Hehe, I've heard a podcasting neurologist say basically the same thing; Since he knows so many different causes, one worse than the other, but he does play around with such thoughts from time to time.
-
Got my priorities straight. No girlfriend.
-
1
-
-
-
Forgot to eat, damn Wasteland 2.
I'm trembling from hunger ;_;
Star Wars Episode 7 Thread
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
I wish there were more actors that had real fencing backgrounds, like you had in some of the age old movies such as the Mark of Zorro from the 40's. That fencing is so much more neat to look at than the **** they give us in the prequels.