PK htiw klaw eriF

Is that old? Last I heard they said it was fine.

Guns aren't a change, they've been here since the nation's founding as has been the right to bear them. As my 1EE7 associate implied, the same could be said of motor vehicles. In fact, the death toll for car crashes is about the same as gun deaths (http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview), so why allow one and not the other? Ensure that an individual can't possibly murder someone without consequence if they kill someone when no witnesses besides the individual in question exist and the individual in question was told by the authorities to back off. What would you do if Zimmerman had used a knife or brick instead of a gun? Why does it have to be a necessity? Off-topic, but sadly not that simple.I was asked specifically about the availability of cheap crap food, not obesity as a whole. Obesity as a whole requires better nutritional education and public alternatives to paid private gyms, on a widespread scale. Not really, most poor families buy boxed foods from places like Food Town rather than fast food. For a large family, paying 1.08 per burger isn't as cheap as a box of instant food. Hence cheap healthy alternatives being needed.

...How exactly would you solve the problem of crap food being available to low-income households? By taking said crap food away from them? 1. Make sure cheap healthy alternatives are available 2. Do a better job on educating children on nutrition

My citation says 10 per 100,000 deaths. Personally, I do not look it as numbers so much as I do lives. Do you realize that 10 deaths per 100,000, if we were to apply that to Obsidian forums as an example, means ten of us would be gone right now. Every life should be valued. I know that sounds corny, but think about yourself, all your uniqueness and all your stories and opinions you'd like to tell, and every single other human on earth is exactly as unique. The phrase "you are special, just like everyone" is infact not a paradox. 10 per 100000 deaths in the US are due to guns? Last study I looked at(http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809516) shows obesity being responsible for 18.2% of deaths. That's 18200 per 100000. Being obese kills 1820x the rate of a machine designed to kill. I'd say violence is certainly isn't much, and obesity is easier to address both culturally and legally than guns, which are protected by an amendment and one of the most effective political lobbies in the world. As someone who has personally suffered with weight issues, including obesity, I can say that it is much worse than the statistically insignificant damage gun violence causes, in that it renders the lives of those who suffer with it plagued with health problems and a sense of worthlessness. Addressing the issues that cause obesity, such as the crap food available to low-income households or the lack of education in nutrition and fitness is also easier to do than touch gun ownership.

4.5 deaths per 100000 isn't that much. If you're an American, you're more likely to die from obesity than being shot.

There's like 20 murders(of blacks) per 100000 blacks, so it's not exactly an epidemic there either. Most anti-weapons people are making a big deal over nothing.

Is Israel involved in any way? If no, the US won't do ****.

Clicked link. Doesn't work. Many have tried to click it, but it just hasn't been properly implemented yet. It's like Age of Decadence, perpetual beta.

So your problem is, essentially, that power corrupts, and the bigger the power, the bigger the risk of corruption - hence governments need to be limited in power, because that will prevent those who want to bend the world to their will from accruing the means to do so. Am I reading you correctly? I'd agree with that. Niet comrade. The power is of the people, vox populi as some might say it, and the will of the people is the will of the state; therefore the state is only as corrupted as the spirit of common worker man. *twists the bushy moustache* I really need to stop visiting /leftypol/

Volo don't be naive, we need governments or there will be anarchy throughout society. And no one wants that Speak for yourself.

Kaineparker is pleased. He lives next to me. Jesus Rojas.

Vidya romance is awful and needs to be purged with nuclear fire.

My personal advice: skip step 2. Nah, the atmosphere and set pieces are awesome Keep in mind that the "Alternative Edition Redux" is only available through download on the 'net as it is not an official release. Just google it and do not feel bad for dowloading it since it falls under as an educational piece.

Dying is fine, but I wouldn't include killing in a child's story, but then again, I'm no author. Well given the age range, why not? Child is everything up to 12, no?Depends on how the killing is done, how it fits in the story. Heh the Animal Farm film was ok, up to the ending which was needless. Honestly, at eleven, twelve, I was reading things like Stephen King's It, Herbert's Dune, Lord of the Rings, etc. Nobody was reading me anything anymore. If your child is that age and still depends on you for reading to them, there's something wrong. Reading Dune at 11 might be boring to some considering the political intrigues, but reading It at the same age left you with a weird feeling because of what the children had to do to become adults. Sure it was more of survival pact between friends, but still the innocence of childhood had gone when i read it at the same age. I saw the filmed IT before reading the novel at 11 or 12, and remember being freaked out quite a bit by the more brutal nature of IT and the other stuff(rereading it now actually, and catching a lot more "mystical" stuff I missed before). About a month later I dropped my keys down a storm drain(like what Pennywise was in when Georgie encountered it) and was scared that IT would get me while I was down there getting them back. Still haven't read Dune though, should really get around to that sometime. 1. Give Prophecy Theme a listen - After listning, are you now feeling that tingle of mystique? Something greater than just a standard sci-fi? Maybe even something trancendental? Good, then follow the next step. 2. Watch Dune - Alternative Edition Redux [fanedit] - It is the version that actually makes sense. Avoid any other. - Realize that this is really a flawed jem. It's pretty much the best hero's journey that you can find with themes of destiny, precience and overcoming oneself. 3. Read the book. - Your life is now complete. (I only read four first books of Dune due to SPOILER: ) I've got my last final on Tuesday, but I'll give this a try when I sober up afterwards.

Dying is fine, but I wouldn't include killing in a child's story, but then again, I'm no author.Well given the age range, why not? Child is everything up to 12, no?Depends on how the killing is done, how it fits in the story. Heh the Animal Farm film was ok, up to the ending which was needless. Honestly, at eleven, twelve, I was reading things like Stephen King's It, Herbert's Dune, Lord of the Rings, etc. Nobody was reading me anything anymore. If your child is that age and still depends on you for reading to them, there's something wrong. Reading Dune at 11 might be boring to some considering the political intrigues, but reading It at the same age left you with a weird feeling because of what the children had to do to become adults. Sure it was more of survival pact between friends, but still the innocence of childhood had gone when i read it at the same age. I saw the filmed IT before reading the novel at 11 or 12, and remember being freaked out quite a bit by the more brutal nature of IT and the other stuff(rereading it now actually, and catching a lot more "mystical" stuff I missed before). About a month later I dropped my keys down a storm drain(like what Pennywise was in when Georgie encountered it) and was scared that IT would get me while I was down there getting them back. Still haven't read Dune though, should really get around to that sometime.

Harrison Bergman. It was a satire of dystopian fiction of the time.

It failed on the final boss for me(1.04). Was playing PotD so that may have had something to do with it.

The feminists know, shut it down!

I only speak American and subtitles are a secular jewish pinko conspiracy.

Well I suppose they are generally left, but more social democrats than socialist and more concerned about intersectional boogeymen than class or economics.

Same here. But they had some great funding, they even had their own building with a nice garden, seperated but equal from the others So the stuff from the arts faculty, then ?\ I would say more of the philosophy department. It lacks the horrible prentiousness found among the art students. I've been drinking with both parties during my days in the academia and you'll notice a certain pattern emerging: the former is more about a whimsical idea to spark a debate about anything and the other is more about narcisism with a hint of madness. Also, the philosopher wakes up the following morning wondering what the hell was the point of all that jibberish while other wakes up knowing which people you should put on your ****-list. My experience has been that both are packed with people who think the **** they make up is profound despite it not being particularly good. And they tend to be bourgeois as well. You must've attended a hipster-university, my condolences. True on hating the bourgeois though, but different in how they articulated it. Since the philosophers actually had classes in reason, ethics and morality, they could at least criticize them for being hazardous to a just society (from affording good lawyers to creating laws that benefit only them), the immorality of vices leading to inequity due the potential power and so on. The "artists" just thought that they were the first reading Karl Marx and attended every new kind protest for the sake of protesting. They did posess that raw spirit that one can admire. Too bad it was almost always focused on dumb ****. Oh I was saying that the students of art and philosophy are largely bourgeois. More so than the STEMlords or economics and pre-law students at any rate.

So the stuff from the arts faculty, then ?\ I would say more of the philosophy department. It lacks the horrible prentiousness found among the art students. I've been drinking with both parties during my days in the academia and you'll notice a certain pattern emerging: the former is more about a whimsical idea to spark a debate about anything and the other is more about narcisism with a hint of madness. Also, the philosopher wakes up the following morning wondering what the hell was the point of all that jibberish while other wakes up knowing which people you should put on your ****-list. My experience has been that both are packed with people who think the **** they make up is profound despite it not being particularly good. And they tend to be bourgeois as well.

Wut? Rather than encourage bad parents to do better, you want good parents to do worse? Because of the white supremacist cismale patriarchy? That makes about as much sense as combating obesity by encouraging fit people to work out less and eat worse.

It can be, but we have a few situations that are more relevant at the moment, such as the SPJ thing and possibly a debate panel at a con. I'd much prefer to talk about that than getting into another circular argument with Bruce that clogs up several pages. Ooh i've not heard of this, Return of the Honey Badgers? Not necessarily, a comic con said it would be open to a debate panel concerning gg. At work right now so can't link, but the idea was to get a couple of willing people selected. KiA probably has more details.

It can be, but we have a few situations that are more relevant at the moment, such as the SPJ thing and possibly a debate panel at a con. I'd much prefer to talk about that than getting into another circular argument with Bruce that clogs up several pages.