Yea, it's ridiculous that people are too stupid to understand that if you're two feet off someone's bumper doing 80 mph, you are NOT going to be able to stop in time. I'd say there's at least a good half a dozen times a year where I see 3-6 car pileups on the side of the road because they're all idiots tailgating and then the person in front hits the brakes for some reason, then *BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM*. The worst part is, those same idiots will go out and get in the same wreck a few months later.
I'm sorry, WHAT? Do you have some sort of visual impairment that prevents you from seeing the whole car in front of you? I always see the tail lights (on both sides) when driving behind another car - how do you NOT?
You're not going to get the countries that have them to give them up - however, the ones that do have them have shown to be responsible enough not to start a nuclear war. You won't get an argument from me about the US getting into lots of pointless wars, but the wars that the US gets into aren't "lets eradicate a country / race / religion off the map" - which is very different from the type of wars these third world dictatorships talk about waging if they get nuclear weapons.
I'd be just fine with them having nuclear weapons as a deterrent if they showed themselves to be responsible enough not to START a nuclear war (retaliation is another story).
Not when Iran has openly said that they'd use nuclear weapons to start a war (they launch a nuke, the US, China, Russia, etc launch nukes to retaliate, etc). Freedom comes with responsibility. Iran has admitted to being irresponsible. You don't have the freedom to kill others for shits and giggles.
It's not about "needing to be taken seriously". The problem is that we know that nuclear war would royally fuck up the entire planet and kill most people - so countries that are batshit crazy (like Iran) that can't be trusted not to just start nuking every one who they don't like don't start a nuclear war and kill the entire human race.
I'm going to assume from your comments that you're in the military. If so, then I have a cold, sad truth for you - you haven't done one goddamn thing to defend our freedom or the Constitution. In fact, you provide the muscle to the very people who take away our freedoms and piss on the Constitution. Despite the bullshit you're told in boot camp, you are NOT defending America or "serving your country". You are blindly serving the whims of corrupt politicians, without ever questioning to see if what they're telling you is the right thing to do or not. You are the very enemy you were told you were fighting against, because YOU are the threat the government uses to keep citizens cowed and following orders. Congratulations, you are a terrorist and you never had the good sense to realize it.
I'm well aware I'll probably get modded down since military worship is everywhere, but it doesn't matter. I'm not going to pretend like the armed thugs doing the ill will of corrupt politicians are somehow protecting us. The US Constitution specifically bans a standing army in a time of peace - makes you wonder why ever since WWII the US government has always found some bogus reason to perpetually be at war.
Which is why we can easily identify the good politicians from the bad now. The good politicians will support Wikileaks and others who are exposing corruption. The bad ones will condemn Wikileaks and label them terrorists.
Oh yes, you run around saying it's ok to drug and rape girls and yet you try to claim that I'M the bad guy for making a reasonable extrapolation about your actions regarding women.
You're a fucking joke, and not even a funny one at that.
Jesus christ you don't bother to listen. Also, seeing as how I know a few hundred girls and I said around 3% of them get raped, the math comes out pretty nicely that I know 4-5 girls who've been raped. Ruh Roh Raggy! Someone used LOGIC.
Also, you might appreciate that in the US the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing makes rape extremely hard to successfully prosecute, since "date rape," typically is a he-said-she-said thing.
Yes, and the woman automatically is believed to be telling the truth and if the defendant calls her a liar, he's just an evil man. We live in a society where everyone's told that women can do no wrong and that men are evil and responsible for every bad thing that happens in the world.
The recipe for not getting charged with rape is simple: No means no, stop means stop, don't fuck crazy people.
You don't watch the news, do you? All a girl has to do is say "he raped me" and that's it - you're done. A random girl can just see you walk down the street and into your home and say "Hey, that's him". It's no secret that girls in middle school / high school do this from time to time to get rid of teachers that they don't like because the man is ALWAYS automatically assumed guilty and even if proven innocent, they won't get their job back and they'll still have the media calling them a rapist and saying that they got off by some bogus means. Remember the Duke Lacrosse team?
But no, you have a vendetta against all men (what, get turned down a lot by guys you like?) and want to make even looking at a girl a crime. Women are legally granted all power in any interaction with men. It's ridiculous.
First off, I said nothing about non-consensual sex - I said particular aspects of sex that some people enjoy and others don't. Secondly, only a very small percentage of women in the US are raped (I forget the exact number, something like 3%) - so no, it's not a "very real risk". Then there's the fact that between false rape plus people expanding the definition of rape to include "you later regretted it", yes, guys definitely have to worry about being falsely accused of rape since being accused means that you're automatically guilty (regardless of verdict) and must register as a sex offender, etc. Your life is DONE if you're falsely accused.
I think maybe you should meet some girls who are ACTUAL victims of rape (such as girls I'm friends with and even family members) before you expand your definition like that. I can guarantee you that many of them would be quite upset that you're trivializing what happened to them by comparing it to people who change their mind / regret it later.
But hey, we gotta punish those evil men for having penises, right? Who cares if we have to redefine words and crimes to make it happen, all the matters is the end result of male submission to the vastly superior females.
Gotta love the unbalanced society we live in where if girls do something a guy doesn't like the guy is told "Tough shit, deal with it" but if a guy does something a girl doesn't like, she's told she can sue him or send him to jail. There is a HUGE difference between doing something a person doesn't like when you're already fooling around (say one person going down on another when that person doesn't care for oral) and grabbing a person and forcing them to have sex with you. Are you a dick if you do something you know they won't like? Definitely. But you wouldn't charge your friend with theft for being a dick and eating all the food in your house or drinking all of your beer when you said they could only have one, would you?
The fact that the girl testified in court that she was begging him to stop as he raped her and anally raped her.
As for your crap about it being resolved by money? You've never heard of people giving up just so that others will STFU about something? That's one of the reasons that so many rapes are never charged, because of the BS media circus.
I fear for the safety of any girl alone with you after your comments.
First off, I'm OK with people who are capable of making their own decisions, even if under the legal age, having sex with people over the age of their own will. What Polanski did though was rape seeing as she was begging him to stop and he kept going. You are defending a rapist - "statutory rape" is what he was charged with, which is bogus since he forced a girl to have sex - that's just rape, her age has nothing to do with it.
You are using irrelevant facts to make excuses for rape, plain and simple.
Unless you're Roman Polanski. Then you'll have celebrities and politicians in Europe running out of the woodwork to defend your right to drug and rape a 13 year old girl.
But if the accusations should turn out to be correct, and the leaks also correct, it doesn't appear to be rape as in forcing the women to have sex, but turning consensual sex into a "rougher" and "degrading" sex.
So, lets say this is worse case scenario and he had rough sex with a girl - where the fuck is the crime there? Is doggy style going to be criminalized next? What about anal, is that still cool or do we need to revive the anti-sodomy laws?
Nothing screams "bullshit charge" than trying to arrest someone for having rough sex.
Well, there is a noticeable negative correlation between an increase in education and professional achievement in women and the number of children a woman has.
In my own experience, my father was old and sick, and he realized that it was time for him to go.
And you completely missed the point - right now it is a fact that you're going to die, thus when you reach a certain point, you're "ready" because you know it's unavoidable. However, what if you didn't have to die? What if you could naturally live forever, as in Highlander and never get sick or old? You wouldn't feel "ready" to die because you wouldn't be sitting there knowing that you have X number of days to live and that you're rapidly approaching X.
He said "problem of aging damage". There's a big difference living to be 100 and spending the last 10-15 years of your life mostly immobile and just sitting around doing nothing and being in much better physical shape so that you can keep living your life the same way in your 90's as you do today. People already live pretty long with modern medicine, the issue we have now is staying younger longer to get enjoyment out of that extended lifespan.
You're a 20-something, aren't you? Come back and say that in another half a century. Life isn't all that "must-have" after a bunch of decades, even if you're in perfect health. The main problem is that after numerous years of life-experience, you start realizing what unbelievable sacks of shit most people truly are. If YOU get to live forever, you're going to have to deal with THEM forever too.
Yes, but living forever also means that you get thousands of years of books to read, technological improvements to witness, hell if you use your time wisely, you might be one of the ones creating those improvements (if you can't get several PhD's over the course of 10,000 years, then you have some serious procrastination issues). I'm well aware people suck - I don't want to live for thousands of years for people, I want to live for art and science and knowledge.
Eight? Hell, I did that when I was six (not the walking from school though, too far, but I'd go a couple miles to the gas station to buy ice cream in the summer). Kids these days are too damn coddled.
Now someone get these damn whippersnappers off my lawn...
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, it's ridiculous that people are too stupid to understand that if you're two feet off someone's bumper doing 80 mph, you are NOT going to be able to stop in time. I'd say there's at least a good half a dozen times a year where I see 3-6 car pileups on the side of the road because they're all idiots tailgating and then the person in front hits the brakes for some reason, then *BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM*. The worst part is, those same idiots will go out and get in the same wreck a few months later.
I'm sorry, WHAT? Do you have some sort of visual impairment that prevents you from seeing the whole car in front of you? I always see the tail lights (on both sides) when driving behind another car - how do you NOT?
You're not going to get the countries that have them to give them up - however, the ones that do have them have shown to be responsible enough not to start a nuclear war. You won't get an argument from me about the US getting into lots of pointless wars, but the wars that the US gets into aren't "lets eradicate a country / race / religion off the map" - which is very different from the type of wars these third world dictatorships talk about waging if they get nuclear weapons.
I'd be just fine with them having nuclear weapons as a deterrent if they showed themselves to be responsible enough not to START a nuclear war (retaliation is another story).
Not when Iran has openly said that they'd use nuclear weapons to start a war (they launch a nuke, the US, China, Russia, etc launch nukes to retaliate, etc). Freedom comes with responsibility. Iran has admitted to being irresponsible. You don't have the freedom to kill others for shits and giggles.
It's not about "needing to be taken seriously". The problem is that we know that nuclear war would royally fuck up the entire planet and kill most people - so countries that are batshit crazy (like Iran) that can't be trusted not to just start nuking every one who they don't like don't start a nuclear war and kill the entire human race.
I can verify this. I don't live in Kentucky, but my job is in Kentucky. Every time I cross into Kentucky, a few more braincells die.....
I'm going to assume from your comments that you're in the military. If so, then I have a cold, sad truth for you - you haven't done one goddamn thing to defend our freedom or the Constitution. In fact, you provide the muscle to the very people who take away our freedoms and piss on the Constitution. Despite the bullshit you're told in boot camp, you are NOT defending America or "serving your country". You are blindly serving the whims of corrupt politicians, without ever questioning to see if what they're telling you is the right thing to do or not. You are the very enemy you were told you were fighting against, because YOU are the threat the government uses to keep citizens cowed and following orders. Congratulations, you are a terrorist and you never had the good sense to realize it.
I'm well aware I'll probably get modded down since military worship is everywhere, but it doesn't matter. I'm not going to pretend like the armed thugs doing the ill will of corrupt politicians are somehow protecting us. The US Constitution specifically bans a standing army in a time of peace - makes you wonder why ever since WWII the US government has always found some bogus reason to perpetually be at war.
Which is why we can easily identify the good politicians from the bad now. The good politicians will support Wikileaks and others who are exposing corruption. The bad ones will condemn Wikileaks and label them terrorists.
Assange just needs to remember to only become shaken by their assassination attempts, not stirred.
Oh yes, you run around saying it's ok to drug and rape girls and yet you try to claim that I'M the bad guy for making a reasonable extrapolation about your actions regarding women.
You're a fucking joke, and not even a funny one at that.
Jesus christ you don't bother to listen. Also, seeing as how I know a few hundred girls and I said around 3% of them get raped, the math comes out pretty nicely that I know 4-5 girls who've been raped. Ruh Roh Raggy! Someone used LOGIC.
Also, you might appreciate that in the US the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing makes rape extremely hard to successfully prosecute, since "date rape," typically is a he-said-she-said thing.
Yes, and the woman automatically is believed to be telling the truth and if the defendant calls her a liar, he's just an evil man. We live in a society where everyone's told that women can do no wrong and that men are evil and responsible for every bad thing that happens in the world.
The recipe for not getting charged with rape is simple: No means no, stop means stop, don't fuck crazy people.
You don't watch the news, do you? All a girl has to do is say "he raped me" and that's it - you're done. A random girl can just see you walk down the street and into your home and say "Hey, that's him". It's no secret that girls in middle school / high school do this from time to time to get rid of teachers that they don't like because the man is ALWAYS automatically assumed guilty and even if proven innocent, they won't get their job back and they'll still have the media calling them a rapist and saying that they got off by some bogus means. Remember the Duke Lacrosse team?
But no, you have a vendetta against all men (what, get turned down a lot by guys you like?) and want to make even looking at a girl a crime. Women are legally granted all power in any interaction with men. It's ridiculous.
The summary also forgot that as soon as this new site leaks something, it's leader will have bogus charges filed against him.
First off, I said nothing about non-consensual sex - I said particular aspects of sex that some people enjoy and others don't. Secondly, only a very small percentage of women in the US are raped (I forget the exact number, something like 3%) - so no, it's not a "very real risk". Then there's the fact that between false rape plus people expanding the definition of rape to include "you later regretted it", yes, guys definitely have to worry about being falsely accused of rape since being accused means that you're automatically guilty (regardless of verdict) and must register as a sex offender, etc. Your life is DONE if you're falsely accused.
I think maybe you should meet some girls who are ACTUAL victims of rape (such as girls I'm friends with and even family members) before you expand your definition like that. I can guarantee you that many of them would be quite upset that you're trivializing what happened to them by comparing it to people who change their mind / regret it later.
But hey, we gotta punish those evil men for having penises, right? Who cares if we have to redefine words and crimes to make it happen, all the matters is the end result of male submission to the vastly superior females.
Gotta love the unbalanced society we live in where if girls do something a guy doesn't like the guy is told "Tough shit, deal with it" but if a guy does something a girl doesn't like, she's told she can sue him or send him to jail. There is a HUGE difference between doing something a person doesn't like when you're already fooling around (say one person going down on another when that person doesn't care for oral) and grabbing a person and forcing them to have sex with you. Are you a dick if you do something you know they won't like? Definitely. But you wouldn't charge your friend with theft for being a dick and eating all the food in your house or drinking all of your beer when you said they could only have one, would you?
The fact that the girl testified in court that she was begging him to stop as he raped her and anally raped her.
As for your crap about it being resolved by money? You've never heard of people giving up just so that others will STFU about something? That's one of the reasons that so many rapes are never charged, because of the BS media circus.
I fear for the safety of any girl alone with you after your comments.
First off, I'm OK with people who are capable of making their own decisions, even if under the legal age, having sex with people over the age of their own will. What Polanski did though was rape seeing as she was begging him to stop and he kept going. You are defending a rapist - "statutory rape" is what he was charged with, which is bogus since he forced a girl to have sex - that's just rape, her age has nothing to do with it.
You are using irrelevant facts to make excuses for rape, plain and simple.
Unless you're Roman Polanski. Then you'll have celebrities and politicians in Europe running out of the woodwork to defend your right to drug and rape a 13 year old girl.
Yes, entertainment doesn't raise your taxes or take away your freedoms. The worst it does is burn up your disposable income.
But if the accusations should turn out to be correct, and the leaks also correct, it doesn't appear to be rape as in forcing the women to have sex, but turning consensual sex into a "rougher" and "degrading" sex.
So, lets say this is worse case scenario and he had rough sex with a girl - where the fuck is the crime there? Is doggy style going to be criminalized next? What about anal, is that still cool or do we need to revive the anti-sodomy laws?
Nothing screams "bullshit charge" than trying to arrest someone for having rough sex.
Well, there is a noticeable negative correlation between an increase in education and professional achievement in women and the number of children a woman has.
It worked in Highlander!
In my own experience, my father was old and sick, and he realized that it was time for him to go.
And you completely missed the point - right now it is a fact that you're going to die, thus when you reach a certain point, you're "ready" because you know it's unavoidable. However, what if you didn't have to die? What if you could naturally live forever, as in Highlander and never get sick or old? You wouldn't feel "ready" to die because you wouldn't be sitting there knowing that you have X number of days to live and that you're rapidly approaching X.
He said "problem of aging damage". There's a big difference living to be 100 and spending the last 10-15 years of your life mostly immobile and just sitting around doing nothing and being in much better physical shape so that you can keep living your life the same way in your 90's as you do today. People already live pretty long with modern medicine, the issue we have now is staying younger longer to get enjoyment out of that extended lifespan.
Speak for yourself. I want to live forever.
You're a 20-something, aren't you? Come back and say that in another half a century. Life isn't all that "must-have" after a bunch of decades, even if you're in perfect health. The main problem is that after numerous years of life-experience, you start realizing what unbelievable sacks of shit most people truly are. If YOU get to live forever, you're going to have to deal with THEM forever too.
Yes, but living forever also means that you get thousands of years of books to read, technological improvements to witness, hell if you use your time wisely, you might be one of the ones creating those improvements (if you can't get several PhD's over the course of 10,000 years, then you have some serious procrastination issues). I'm well aware people suck - I don't want to live for thousands of years for people, I want to live for art and science and knowledge.
Eight? Hell, I did that when I was six (not the walking from school though, too far, but I'd go a couple miles to the gas station to buy ice cream in the summer). Kids these days are too damn coddled.
Now someone get these damn whippersnappers off my lawn...