-
Posts
5642 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by 213374U
-
I'm sorry, sir, but I'm afraid I can't accept that. It seems your license to make up random **** has expired.
-
Don't let the door hit your ass on your way out. :D
-
This is irrelevant. Presumption of innocence isn't simply a legal precept, it's also a useful consideration in informal discussions. What I'm trying to say is that it's bad to assume these things. There is a burden of proof that must be dealt with before establising culpability, without that there is no causality. It may be intellectually appealing to assume that these parents were abusive as it makes it easier to understand, but that may or may not be the case. If you just want to start proclaiming guilt left and right, go ahead. But that's the point where the discussion loses all meaning, as your guess is as good as mine. Please, do so. It's always interesting to see how people come up with these numbers, as this isn't hard science by any means. Also keep in mind that correlation does not imply causation. What? If anything, then being a psychopath would have to be a mitigating circumstance, as psychopaths do not choose to be so, and according to you, it's their condition that "most likely led them to commit the crime". Or are you suggesting that being a psychopath is a crime in and by itself? What's your point, exactly?
-
Unfortunately, in this case, assuming that these children were abused entails criminal liability for their parents. Are you familiar with the concept of presumption of innocence? Also, where do you get this "vast majority" fact from, and what exactly constitutes a "vast majority"? You know, it's bad form to jump "incorrect" at what somebody said when you actually failed to understand what he meant. Just sayin'. We lack the means to deal with psychopaths as psychopaths. Of course, when they have broken the law, they can be dealt with (albeit rather ineffectively, as the penal system focuses heavily on rehabilitation), but then the circumstance that they have a personality disorder is secondary to the fact that they are criminals, which makes the point moot.
-
And I'm not an expert but I think you just made that up on the spot. There's just no way to know from what the article says. Psychopathy isn't always a result of childhood abuse. Yep. That's an important question, I think. But if these kids are truly psychopaths as opposed to simply self-taught hooligans, what are the odds that their parents could actually detect it? To what extent can they reasonably be held accountable? We simply lack the means of dealing with people with aberrant personalities, as they aren't truly mad and therefore can't be confined just because of what they might do. Unfortunately these people are walking time bombs, and even though only a portion of them is violent, they are all dangerous. Sadly, all one can do is hope not to run into one. Wals, you have some sort of psychology background, don't you? Surely you must have more to say than that?
-
Any plans for a sideburns DLC pack, Mr. Sawyer?
-
All those beards take a lot of time and effort to make, you know.
-
Like mustard in your breakfast milk. Some things just aren't meant to be.
-
-
@Aristes Nah, the insult to intelligence wasn't aimed at you, or even necessarily related to this topic, as I'm not really familiar with the facts. It was more of a general statement. This thread reminded me of the thing that's been going on over here about 11-M, and your comments surprised me. You see, one of the things I like the most about US democracy is that, on paper at least, it relies on the citizenry to keep an eye on it - unlike French Revolution-inspired Euro States which quite blatantly fear the people. So, what's the deal, then? Are you not bothered by this because it was NOT an act of the US gov't, or because of genuine faith in the general infallibility of democratic institutions? I ask this because not being an angry citizen doesn't mean you can't be intellectually "restless". Sorry if I sound condescending but not being in possession of all the details doesn't mean you must defer to the opinions of officials just because they are the ones wearing the wigs and fancy dresses. Folks here aren't posting any original research, simply referring to different sources, which may raise valid points. I think it's always possible (and often rather sensible) not to have an opinion, especially if you take everything with the same dose of healthy skepticism. Huh, and I'm not even wearing my tinfoil hat as I write this.
-
It will all depend on how hardcore your friends are. If they play Standard (the most expensive, fun and time-consuming way to play), they can build a deck that will steamroll any of yours in about 5 minutes. That's no fun. If they are casual like yourself, it's probably a good way to start. I quit MtG a long time ago, so I cant' give you specifics on the decks, though. Pre-constructed builds don't usually feature the top players in the sets, so don't expect much from them at any rate. In your copy-paste frenzy, you also broke the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Ga...ecks#Shadowmoor
-
Wow, that looks... fun. You mean you guys make and release actual games? ;P PC release, please.
-
So, basically you're giving up your right to an independent criteria? You defer your private judgment to those officially appointed? I don't know man, that kind of shrug and walk away attitude is, I think, a recipe for disaster. I don't think anyone is asking you to believe what they're posting as if it were gospel, but taking what a Scottish court decided as gospel isn't much better. I didn't think you were such an establishment guy. Disagreeing with or outright not trusting the institutions doesn't leave you with armed resistance as the only option. For now, we just bide our time... Yeah, back to square one, are we? The problem with manmade systems is and always has been... man. That is no excuse for when they are insulting people's intelligence, though. Ugh, I sound more and more like Hades every day.
-
I don't know, but this rubbed me the the wrong way for some reason. If you are a big China buff, then why not share your quite obviously well-informed opinions with the rest of us? WoT denizens are hardly your stereotypical "video games forum" residents. Heh, YOU are posting here, yourself. Being rather unfamiliar with 20th century Chinese history, I found your summary interesting, but terribly unspecific and unsubstantiated. I mean, everyone knows that China is a place of contrasts and that the image of a modern, prosperous power is just a facet. How does this tie in with the idea that avoiding sub-par Chinese products is unfeasible and stupid? Wouldn't that actually serve as an incentive for Chinese manufacturers to increase their end product standards? Just take a look at the crazy fakes market, for instance. They keep up with the originals quite well, because otherwise, they wouldn't sell so much. It's interesting that you bring the "way of the world" into this, as this would appear to be a good case to see economic darwinism in action, no? In a way, it could be that the "weak" are those who suffer the consequences of the Chinese unwillingness to comply with Western liability legislation, but that's stretching it a bit too much, and not exactly good advice or an inescapable truth by any means. Not even when reduced price tags are associated? I won't be purchasing any Chinese climbing ropes (or fireworks) - sneakers, on the other hand...
-
The thing about aides-de-camp caught my attention. Sounds great - not for the impatient. Hehe, so you make a few decisions here and there, and get to see the consequences of those... later. Sounds good, on paper at least. Yeah, that's a shame. Maybe in an expansion or a sequel. Looks like this game will be either WIN or FAIL and the determining factor for that will be the intermediate and lower-level AIs. If you spend an hour customising and deploying your forces only to see that the individual regiments can't find their way out of a wet paper bag without you ordering them around, it's going to be tough to like this game, "Doctrine Editor" or not. I am still very skeptical about indie games. Nice find.
-
My point was that BM shows that it's possible to design an infiltration-focused gameplay where not killing anyone is not only possible, but can actually be more rewarding than going in guns blazing. No vent ducts whatsoever. And no magic either, aside from insta-changing clothes and enemies not being suspicious that some bald dude with a barcode in the back of his skull, that they've never seen before, is now the latest member of their security outfit. I have no idea how real world ops are conducted, but I'm inclined to believe that producing corpses is very messy and risky, and therefore, to be avoided whenever possible.
-
What game is the left pic?!
-
Awesome/interesting games no one has heard of
213374U replied to Purkake's topic in Computer and Console
This one was quite famous in its time. But that was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... so to speak. Megatraveller: The Zhodani Conspiracy Casino dude > U -
No, that was quite well done, I agree. It remains to be seen whether it will have the deep ramifications it should in the sequel, and that's what I'm talking about. You could effect a radical change in the government in a galaxy-wide scale... but I guess that since you go to the "wild frontier", that won't have so much impact in the game. Oh wait, I'm not supposed to speculate. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main...AndTroubledPast Obviously. I was going to make a comment in really poor taste about the girl Bos_hybrid posted and her assets, but I'd rather not go back to being moderated so soon. I'll just say that at least Benezia was easy on the eyes. Oh, and the site you are trying to link from Jacob's pic doesn't seem to like hotlinking. I'm getting a huge "DON'T" sign. Which is kinda fitting. *ahem*
-
Have you played Blood Money?
-
Yes, I've fiddled with the FRMs, so I know the kind of numbers we're talking about here - just my avatar here is 16 frames, and it's a tiny fraction of what's there for that critter. But don't tell me you "can't", when people have done just that with the NPC armor mod. You just don't want to do it or have more pressing things to do, such as quests. I totally understand that, and agree with the decision. I favor content over cosmetics - was simply interested in knowing if it had been done or considered. I just find it sad that at this stage it's been written off as unfeasible.
-
Ah, I was wrong. I could swear I had read something along those lines, anyway. Wait. You're playing ME2?
-
Uh, yeah. Make that HOI2, though. I can't even count anymore, it seems. Barbarossa will be a total victory, for sure. I'm holding HOI3 off until alanschu reports in all the bugs and they get around to fixing them. I'd really hate to, well, hate this game.