Recent posts by axlkoegoskyeg on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / One thing that I really REALLY hate...

To a small extent, abreviations. I am fine with one or two, I even use then in casual contexts, but in a more “serious” discussion, or when half the dialogue is made out of abreviations, it begins getting ridiculous…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vampire Rights.

Originally posted by Immortal7777:
Originally posted by axlkoegoskyeg:
Originally posted by Immortal7777:

They would probably have to create a type of blood that doesn’t require draining humans. But we could create this we would have to monitor the vampire population. Kill most of them so that the population is too low to do some damage. Perhaps set up a blood tithe to keep them alive or just sell it to the vampires but be sure to keep most of them dead. Then administer the synthetic blood.

… What, would we be just killing randon vampires to keep the population low? Even if we completely ignore the fact they are sentient beings: Yeah, that totally wont end up with the survivors, including the ones who normally would love to live amongst humans without ever feeding on a human without its consent, rebelling against us. Totally.

Being sentient doesn’t exempt them from being killed. We might as well just kill them all then. They can’t live among us without killing a human for blood or else they would die themselves.

Besides that rebellion will be easy to put down. Just distribute garlic to all the soldiers and the vampires will be helpless.

Great, what is your argument now? For it cant be that they are killing people, so… What, what is it, really?

Elaborating on my post, as I got interrupted by IRL issues while I was writing it: My point is… Again, that I dont see where are you getting at. You made a point that was completely disproven by your previous post: They ARE able to live without killing people. So, if you do not see then as a threat, what is your objective on exterminating then? How does that makes us any better then then?

Addicionally, interstingly enough: If you exclude the fact they are a threat to humans, vampires can actually be used as a metaphor for… Basically any excluded minority, ever. If we were having this same argument about, say, people with HIV, I am absolutely sure the outrage would have already begun. Do we want to kill vampires because they kill people… Or just because they are different from us?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vampire Rights.

Originally posted by Immortal7777:

They would probably have to create a type of blood that doesn’t require draining humans. But we could create this we would have to monitor the vampire population. Kill most of them so that the population is too low to do some damage. Perhaps set up a blood tithe to keep them alive or just sell it to the vampires but be sure to keep most of them dead. Then administer the synthetic blood.

… What, would we be just killing randon vampires to keep the population low? Even if we completely ignore the fact they are sentient beings: Yeah, that totally wont end up with the survivors, including the ones who normally would love to live amongst humans without ever feeding on a human without its consent, rebelling against us. Totally.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vampire Rights.

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by axlkoegoskyeg:

Errr… Why three posts?

Technical glitch, I guess. I don’t know why it did that.

And, well, never watched that series, but I heard of it, and it was honestly what inspired me to it XD. Honestly, I feel that, considering vampires are essentially human, peacefull convivence would be possible( … If they existed to begin with ), but I still think regulations would have to be made. For a example: I really feel a person that desired to turn into a vampire( Not me: However… Well, look at all the Twilight fans in our world ) would have to first be a adult, and also pass through a small battery of psycological tests, to know whether it has a good enough control of its impulses.

So the only problem I see with this logic is that it couldn’t possible encapsulate all of the humans that wished to turn vampire, or the vampires who wished to change humans. There would always be outlaws, so it is sort of like saying someone has to pass a battery of psychological tests to try meth. Those types of people are going to do what they’re going to do. I suppose those who wanted to go through the proper channels and get the state’s “blessing” to change could try to adhere to these rules.

Kind of true. However, keep in mind that meth users are, inherently, endangering only theirselves: Turning into a vampire when you are not mentally ready, however, would endanger both you and those around you. While obviously they wouldnt be ALLOWED to kill people, I just feel it is one of those situations on which prevention is a better solution.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vampire Rights.

^^Well, I feel this is a bit of a fake comparisson, honestly. After all, vampires ARE inherently dangerous to those around then: Immigrants are… Not. Even if you try to look at then as a threat to our culture… So what? No, really, let us be pratical about it: A culture is a very abstract, constantly evolving concept. It is actually EXPECTED it will change over time. So, would you really compare a perfectly natural process that happens in every civilization with the perspective of we being slaughtered by vampires?

I DO feel immigrants should learn our language if they want to live here, though, even if just for the convenience of all parties involved. Back to the vampires, though( For the record, I actually somewhat like vampires as a literary concept, although it is really hard for me to find anything pulling then right. Regardless, it is just a topic that, while purely imaginary, sounded like it could be used to test some values )… Sort of. I mean, what, exactly, would be a vampire “culture”? I know there are vampire communities on the real world, but vampires were once human: They would have been raised in a human society, by human friends, and it would be really unlikely a person would choose to renegate all of its old cultural values just because he/she is a vampire now.

And also, as for a hypotethical instatisfaction with being secound-class citizens: Well, be it happening with immigrants, aliens, or vampires, isnt such insatisfaction actually perfectly natural? I am not talking about desire for a takeover, although I imagine some would try that, no: I am talking about simply not being treated as secound-class citizens, rather being treated like people, just like anyone else. Of course, vampires would yet again be a bit of a different case, because security measures would have to be stabilished to reduce the chances of we having to deal with out of control vampires. And how far would the security measures be “fair”, and how far would they start getting absurd?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vampire Rights.

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Originally posted by axlkoegoskyeg:

This hypotethical vampire mythology said: What do you think that would be the more moral approach a government could take torwards these vampires? Should they be exterminated, or incorporated in society?

I feel they should be incorporated, because, well, it would be unfair to these 20% otherwise. But the government probably should keep a record on then, to know whether they actually arent hurting anyone. As for how should the incorporation happen… Well, this should be complicated.

Your question is fine, but these are basically the sort of issues that True Blood tries to tackle. In that series, vampires co-exist with humans, have their own special night clubs, drink synthetic blood that they can pick up in any convenience store, take blood from consenting human partners……and there are of course the thugs/outlaws who don’t follow the rules. So, yeah, probably that scenario and it’s setup would work if they actually did exist and wanted to benignly integrate into society.

Errr… Why three posts?

And, well, never watched that series, but I heard of it, and it was honestly what inspired me to it XD. Honestly, I feel that, considering vampires are essentially human, peacefull convivence would be possible( … If they existed to begin with ), but I still think regulations would have to be made. For a example: I really feel a person that desired to turn into a vampire( Not me: However… Well, look at all the Twilight fans in our world ) would have to first be a adult, and also pass through a small battery of psycological tests, to know whether it has a good enough control of its impulses.

Not to mention, there is also the prejudice factor. Humans are a racist species even against beings who ARENT inherently a threat in any level. However… Hypotethically: How many humans would trust a vampire as a nanny to its children, for one? I am pretty sure even I would feel… Hesitant, to say the least.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vampire Rights.

Originally posted by NeilSenna:

It’d probably be more unfair to the 100% of humans who’d have the other 80% of vampires chasing them around.

Also, if this is caused by a virus, would that virus not eventually, assuming these vampires are immortal to some degree, exterminate humans?

Sorry 20% of good vampires, but I can’t really see an alternative to just killing them all (and Mr Virus).

It is contagious through contact with their blood, but unless vampires go about turning as many humans as possible into then, it would be unlikely the virus would ever get to terminate humans. Humans DO reproduce, after all…

Even then, well… I cannot think of these 20% so much as a alien, dangerous species, as as people with a health problem. It IS essentially what it is. Do we go about terminating people with contagious diseases because they are a threat to those around then, due to something that they have no control over? Are these vampires REALLY any less human then us?

The 80%, though? Well: We dont accept HUMANS going about killing humans( Most of us dont, anyway ). Why should it be any different with vampires?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vampire Rights.

Before I get it started with the topic itself, I would like to clarify: This is mostly a hypotethical, absurd even, situation that flew through my mind, so I am not fully sure whether this is the right forum for it. However, I still think it would make a intersting… Moral, discussion, if nothing else, and I dont know if it was ever brought up before, so here it goes:

For the purpose of this discussion, let us assume a world where vampires exist. They would be generated by a virus that can spread through contact with their blood, and while they would keep their human memories, intelligence, and personality, they would of course thirst for blood( Imagine, being a heroin addict… Minus, worst. And you would literally rot to dust if you didnt got your fix ), preferentially human( Animal could keep they alive, but… It merely would taste worst. As in, repulsivelly so, and while it would reduce the pain of the bloodlust, it would give then no pleasure ), and their mindset is somewhat… Predatory, in the overral, with instincts that can be compared with the ones of a carnivore. That does NOT means they are literally uncapaeble of empathy or ethics, not more then humans anyway: Merely, that the desire to hunt humans would be something extremely strong to resist, at the point of being able to even eventually lead then to insanity. Hypotethically: If about 80% of then WOULD give up to their instincts eventually, and begin seeing normal humans as nothing but pray, the other 20% would still try to keep their humanity, and find some more moral way to sustent, be whether through voluntary donations, bloodbanks, animals, or criminals( Yes, I know vigilantism falls in the gray area, but one topic at a time please. ). That said, they would have their own abilities( A superior strenght and speed( More comparable to the one of a tiger, and it increases over time ), a impressive enough regeneration to give then a certain degree of immortality( Basically: For as long as their heart is intact, they can regenerate lost limbs, or even a lost head, given then a couple of days ), dont age, have a small degree of mind control( Not enough for they to be able to fully control someone, but they CAN alter how people around then perceive then ), a bite with tranquilizing properties, anesthising the victin but usually leaving it too lethargic to escape, sharper hearing and sense of smell etc. etc. ), and weaknesses( Rapidly burn when exposed to sunlight, sensible to strong sounds
and smells, not to mention the bloodlust itself, etc. etc. )

This hypotethical vampire mythology said: What do you think that would be the more moral approach a government could take torwards these vampires? Should they be exterminated, or incorporated in society?

I feel they should be incorporated, because, well, it would be unfair to these 20% otherwise. But the government probably should keep a record on then, to know whether they actually arent hurting anyone. As for how should the incorporation happen… Well, this should be complicated.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Le My Immortal Dramatic Reading( Oh, I am back, BTW ).

Praticing on my own writing, essentially… That said… Eventually, OT begun getting a bit dull. And I am 99.99% sure Ebony is what is called a author avatar( What is… Well, the term speaks for itself ), and, honestly, if you are going to do THAT in a fanfic, you should at least be subtle enough so that people would NOT notice… That said, as you might recall, I have a history of bashing Twilight, but eventually, it got old, so I though this would be a nice way for me to re-introduce myself.

Now, should I proceed to the next chapter, or…?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Le My Immortal Dramatic Reading( Oh, I am back, BTW ).

So… Yes, I decided I could make a dramatic reading of My Immortal. As I had nothing better to do with my day. I though it wouldnt be very fitting for the Arts forums, as technically, My Immortal is not my creation at all: I am just making a comic, dramatic reading of it. So, if any of you believe My Immortal should never see daylight again… Well, I am bored, and nobody forced you to click this title.

Hi my name is Ebony Dark’ness Dementia Raven Way and I have long ebony black hair (that’s how I got my name) Basic writing tip: If you cannot imagine a mother giving out this name to a newborn child, without laughing, out loud… It is not a good name with purple streaks and red tips that reaches my mid-back and icy blue eyes like limpid tears and a lot of people tell me I look like Amy Lee (AN: if u don’t know who she is get da hell out of here!). I’m not related to Gerard Way but I wish I was because he’s a major fucking hottie … Are you saiyng you wished that the guy you are attracted to, was your relative? What is the matter wi-No, wait, you wrote my Immortal, I shouldnt be surprised. I’m a vampire but my teeth are straight and white. I have pale white skin. I’m also a witch, and I go to a magic school called Hogwarts in England where I’m in the seventh year (I’m seventeen)* … And Dumbledore-Or anyone in his right mind-Would allow vampires into a school because….?* . I’m a goth (in case you couldn’t tell) and I wear mostly black. I love Hot Topic and I buy all my clothes from there I am a Asperger. I understand nothing of clothes. My mother has to choose my clothes for me. And even I know, no goth with self-respect would buy her clothes in Hot Topic. For example today I was wearing a black corset with matching lace around it and a black leather miniskirt, pink fishnets and black combat boots Congratulations. You have a worst sense of fashion then the Asperger kid whose mother has to choose his clothes for him. Here is your award. I was wearing black lipstick, white foundation, black eyeliner and red eye shadow. I was walking outside Hogwarts. It was snowing and raining Wut? so there was no sun, which I was very happy about. A lot of preps What is a prep? stared at me. I put up my middle finger at them.

“Hey Ebony!” shouted a voice. I looked up. It was…. Draco Malfoy!

“What’s up Draco?” I asked.

“Nothing.” he said shyly Draco doesnt say things shily. He wants something, and take it. Or… Tries to take it, fail, and cries to his daddy like a little spoiled bitch. That is pretty much how he acted during 90% of the books.

But then, I heard my friends call me and I had to go away.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

AN: IS it good? PLZ tell me fangz!No, it isnt.

I will be back to bring you more pain soon.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Yu-Gi-Oh! BAM / Card Ideas

That reminds me, from back when I posted cards in the Kongai topic… And was no good at it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Yu-Gi-Oh! BAM / Card Ideas

Hi… So, errr… I happened to have designed a few card concepts( As if you couldnt guess so far already ). Problem is, well.. I dont really know how to put it in the format, and even if I did, I am not sure if I could find any that would fit… So, I think I will just post the card stats for now…

First of all: VERY loosely inspired in the Egyptian Gods… The Dragonlords:

Dragonlord Tempus of the Storm( Level 10 )
Attribute: Air.
Type: Dragon.
Power:3000
Life:2500
Special: Dragonlord Tempus of the Storm will, at Round Start, deal 1000 damage to the enemy by each creature on his side of the field. If the opponent has 3 creatures on his side of the field at Round Start, Dragonlord Tempus of the Storm will also destroy all spells and creatures on his side of the field.

Dragonlord Leviathan of the Ocean( Level 10 )
Attribute: Water
Type: Dragon
Power:3000
Life: 2500
Special: Dragonlord Leviathan of the Ocean gains 500 Power each turn by each spell on the owner side of the field. If the owner has 3 spells at Round Start, Dragonlord Leviathan of the Ocean will gain Immunity at Round Start.

Dragonlord Sylvanus of the Forest( Level 10 )
Attribute: Earth
Type: Dragon
Power: 3000
Life: 2500
Special: Dragonlord Sylvanus of the Forest will negate any effect that would lower the Power of the owner creatures or increase the power of enemy creatures.

^^They might be a bit TOO strong… But I intended then to add a bit of a twist to conventional Yu-Gi-Oh BAM strategy. Of course, as I dont even have a art, the chances of they getting approved is near 0, but still, I though to myself: Why NOT share it.

PS: All of this was originally posted in another topic, also by myself… I will now proceed to delete the original one…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Forum Games / Corrupt-a-Wish

Granted, but your game is so old, it dies of a long age somehow.
I wish for the body that every woman would wish for.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Would you kill your family... To save your city?

This is one of those threads whose title, is already the OP.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Guns never existed.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Considering the fact that, well… The army of a hipotethical dictatorship still WOULD be greatly outnumbered, but now no longer with a hypotethical very massive advantage when it comes to the level of their weaponry now, wouldnt it?

Sorry, I don’t get it. Guns only give you a massive advantage when you have them and the other guys don’t. If no one has them, the strongest guy wins. Longbows are the next best thing to a trump card but they take years of training and even more strength.

I’ve done some work with swords too, though probably not as much as you have. One of the big differences is that fancy swordplay like predicting your enemy’s move is only effective for one-on-one fighting – and no society that relied on melee did much one-on-one fighting; they used shieldwall or swarm tactics.

As for the which-society thing, well, in Europe they didn’t start colonizing until the age of gunpowder, but the Chinese, Romans, Muslims, Mongols, etc all carved out vast empires without guns. So the argument about dictators not being able to control their population without guns doesn’t work.

To your edit…without guns (and bombs) we wouldn’t have much of a terrorism problem at all. Yes, planes would still get hijacked but as we’ve seen that’s a lot harder to pull off after the first time. But there would be no suicide bombers – islam would have to fallback on the old shi’a drugged-out assassin trick.

Well, problem is, typically, in a society where advanced military technology DO exist, the governmant will typically have easier acess to truly high military power then the population. A pistol and a pistol may be balanced, but a pistol would make little difference against a tank for a instance now, wouldnt it?

I will give it to the Chinese, Romans, Muslims etc. etc, however, these governments followed a far different then our dictatorships did. I dont know much about the structure of the Mongol empire, specifically, but as for the others… If I recall right, they followed a very feudal structure, with most of the population being focused in the fields. What meant, less population would be in the cities.What means, less populations would be in largely concentrated areas with easy acess to information exchange. What means, the chances of a large-scale rebellion would be quite lower. When you factor in internet, it might be easier for then to do something along the lines of such mass-scale rebelion anyway. But again, the governmant can just restrain the acess to internet to the minimun, just like North Korea…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Guns never existed.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

being big and strong

Yeah, this. We’d literally have strongman societies. In fact, you could probably argue that democracy would be a historical footnote if guns didn’t exist. The longbow would be the weapon of choice but it takes years to use it to quickly and accurately kill an armor-wearing person at long-range, so alot of societies would retain a yeoman class, further hampering social mobility.

Actually, as Omega observed, this is not necesserially true. Considering the fact that, well… The army of a hipotethical dictatorship still WOULD be greatly outnumbered, but now no longer with a hypotethical very massive advantage when it comes to the level of their weaponry now, wouldnt it?

Besides, for who, like me, bothered to pratice with swords, strenght isnt everything you know. It is not rarely much more about technice and predicting your enemy moves then brute strenght. Sure, brute strenght helps, but you shouldnt rely too much on it…

As for a return to feudalism: Unlikely. At least, I dont see much of a association… Feudalism wasnt defeated as much by guns, as by the rapid growth of the cities, as well as commerce as a whole…

As for myself: I think wars and terrorist attacks would cause less deaths… But exactly because of this, perhaps we would have more wars then we have today( And it wouldnt have affected 9/11 directly, as the plain used wasnt a military plain, BTW ). There is a chance large criminal organizations could gather up a military force comparaeble to the one of small countries, though… At the same time, powerfull countries( Such as the USA ) wouldnt have as much of a military advantage-As military tradition and training itself would matter more then actual economical resources…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Guns never existed.

AX: The military technology did not advanced since the Medieval age. Somehow, this didnt affected any other area of technology, nor had any significant, direct impact on any large, historical event in our past( Ex: The World Wars, the Independence etc. etc. ). For all effects, consider this a society much like ours, except that guns, as well any other form of modern weaponry, were wiped out from existance and humam memory alike.

Assuming this scenario, I ask… How do you think the unexistance of advanced military technology would affect our society?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Elements / Ideas for Elements CCG (Destructive criticism will be ignored)

Wow. These forums sure died in my abstinence. So, anyway…

Timelord(Creature. Cost: 15 Time quanta )
7/5
On sucessfull attack: Temporal machine God reshuffles all creatures on both sides of the field, except himself.

Just though I should put it here…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should the Law have some control over what is done to one's own body?

Originally posted by HolyLasagna:

Thanks for the fanatic impractical ideology-driven statement with no reasoning and counter-arguments backing it up.


It would be nice to see if someone can link this discussion if the fact that America is getting more and more obese each decade.
P.S. Edited the OP with another questioning.

Actually, his exact words were their own body. That is, if it affects someone else, they shouldnt do it.

What means, according to my interpretation, stuff along the lines of abortion, or smoking in public places, shouldnt be allowed. As it would actually be harming someone else. Taking drugs may be allowed, but if the drugs are strong enough to trigger a violent behavior, also not, because again, you would be risking the lives of others. Etc. etc. etc…

To me, personally, that seems like a very reasonable explanation

Originally posted by Draconavin:

Why do babies deserve more rights than the rest of us, jhco?
No matter what, they have no real value, but to be emotional baggage until they learn to communicate effectively.
Don’t forget, your animal instincts are what drive you to have compulsion to protect babies. It is your animal wants that force you to behave, and hold irrational views. It’s important to note that we are hard wired to protect our offspring, and they are built softer than other animal offspring for the shear purpose of us to focus our attention on nurturing them and their development. Your animal urge that makes your blood boil when a baby cries, and you suspect fowl play. Your animal urge to push to console a baby in distress. Our confirmation bias based on emotional cues, can skew our perception on the value of a baby to such proportions it can be unfathomable. Sometimes we falsely look to protect things that our vestigial emotional cues have no purpose to the expanding future of better self-control, increased awareness, and above all, knowing when emotions are falsely leading us astray.

How do we have any real value, then?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should we tolerate the intolerant?

So, to some up what seems to be the general viewpoint of this threa: Should we tolerate the intolerant? Yes… At least, for as long as they dont appeal to outright violence, that is…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Global Climate Change - Get off our lazy butts!

What is the AX here, exactly?
And while there are indeed many things we, civilians, can do( Such as, avoiding too many oil-based products ) truth is, chances are, without a huge reform in the whole industrial citizen… It wont make much of a difference.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Why do people like anime?

I will try to put it in a very simple manner: What is best: Cartoon Network, or TV Tokio?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

I return…

Originally posted by jhco50:

Karma, I have not replied to any of your posts because they were pretty good. We differ on requiring anything that infringes on the 2nd amendment. It means and says what it means. I don’t dismiss our founders as compromising on the Constitution. They new what they were doing. The real reason for the Constitution was to be able to fund the government. The Continental Congress were unable to have any sway in the duties they did have, which were not many. Basically, our rule of law, although thorough and probably the best Constitution ever written, was to allow funding for our government.

It is only the law abiding citizen who follows laws. The criminal ignores them. Glados is right, the honest citizen would more than likely turn in their guns, not all of them, just some. Still, they would be afraid to use them for threat of prosecution. We can look at the UK to see this.

I look at rights differently than you do. Rights are God Given, or natural rights. Privileges are granted by the government. Privileges can be are easily taken, rights aren’t. I don’t look at my fellow man as stupid. Yes, we have a few who are a few bricks shy of a full stack, but the majority are upstanding and intelligent.

We are having record sales of firearms and ammunition. I look at this with a bit of disdain as It causes a shortage for all of us. Try finding .223 ammo right now. Popular firearms are gone, back ordered for months. Yet with all of these new shooters, experienced shooters will take them under their wings and teach them. Just recently an experienced shot-gunner took be under his wing and showed me something new. This is how the firearms community works. Our country has had the right to bear arms for 250 years. We have accepted some bad with the good

I do agree, there are those who have no business picking up a gun or driving a car. But we can’t take away the rights of others for these few…that is a dictatorship. It seems every time a person stubs a toe, do-gooders what a rash of new laws to prevent stubbed toes. They always become irrational and go overboard. There will always be some danger in just living. A good example of this over reaction is lead paint. People have lived and become adults for a hundred years with lead paint in their house. all of a sudden it has become so hazardous we have to treat it like it’s radiation. Irrational behavior like this has become rampant.

I listened to a program the other night with a doctor talking about the drugs I brought up earlier. She said these drugs, which are depressives, are causing irrational behavior in our young people. If they are not the right dosage, or if the person starts taking them to0 fast or quit them too fast, they cause depression, suicidal tendencies, or violence. All of the young people who have committed mass murders has been on some form of these drugs. Why don’t we research this? We have more children on these drugs than any other country in the world. The more I read about these drugs, the more I see a connection. If I can find material on these drugs, why can’t our government? Why do they ignore this possible cause and instead go after a right? Sounds a bit like politics to me.

Ok, lets go through it part by part, shall we?

It is only the law abiding citizen who follows laws. The criminal ignores them. Difference is not all that clear. A criminal can follow the law, if it suits him, and even a honest citizen can be forced to break the law under desperate situations. Either way, the way you put it seems to, again, ignore a quite important point of mine: While you claim that guns are necessary for self defense, my whole point is that the reason of making a law against guns is making self defense unnecessary. Now, am I saiyng there would be no crime if there were no guns? No, but there would be LESS crime if there were no guns, or if at least, to acquire then was a more difficult process… Besides, under regular circunstances, a killer wont hesitate to pull the trigger, but a regular person would. And that can make a huge difference

I look at rights differently than you do. Rights are God Given, or natural rights Now, how are we suppose to prove a specific right is natural or not? Besides, not negating the existance of a X or Y right, I cannot believe you can say any right is absolute. A serial killer, for a instance, at my viewpoint, doesnt have the right to live. So, looking at guns in the other hand, would it be fair to assume that, in the minute the possession of guns represents a danger to the very life of others, that means it is fair to negate that right? Coming from that assumption, deemed as guns were designed with the intention of killing, and are effective at it, cant we say a society on which anyone can acquire a gun would have more deaths, deemed as those who would have the desire of killing, would also have a easy mean of doing so?

I do agree, there are those who have no business picking up a gun or driving a car. But we can’t take away the rights of others for these few…that is a dictatorship But isnt part of the duty of a governmant to protect its citizens? Nobody is, of course, talking about preventing people from doing dangerous things… Assuming they are the only ones who are put in danger by these actions. But, in the wrong hands, a gun DO represents a great danger. So does a car, thus why we can take away ones driver license.

I have to strongly agree with you when it comes to the drugs, however. I support the right of anyone to do as it pleases with its own body, but the problem with drugs, is the level they can take someone. I live in Brazil, and I can tell you the following: One is simply no longer the same person when in drugs. Depending of the level of the addiction, one is capaeble of killing for another dose, and completely loses the sense of reasonable…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / So, let us say you are fourty, married, and father of a 13 years old child. Everything goes great, when suddenly...

Originally posted by MFTMFTMFTMFTMFT:

Is he a boy? If so, I kill him

So, if it is a girl, you wouldnt?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / So, let us say you are fourty, married, and father of a 13 years old child. Everything goes great, when suddenly...

( Dramatic silence )

Your child comes to you and say he/her secretly likes Twilight.

What do you do when confronted with this family drama?