iamshack

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 08:26 AM) That would be awesome Check out what just came in the email... Happy Holidays to you and your family. As your personal representative, I am writing today to invite you to be our guest here at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino. Including the following: 2 Complimentary Nights at Casino or Paradise Towers (December 30, 2012 – January 1, 2013) Each additional night at $109+12% tax NYE Package: · 2 Complimentary Tickets to The Black Keys on Sunday, December 30, 2012 or Monday, December 31, 2012 · Invite to After Party in Vinyl Monday, December 31, 2012 Wooohoooo!

I actually really enjoy Chicago Fire.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 12:28 AM) I couldn't care less if those went away. Same with guns. And yet we continue to tolerate their existence in society. Same with guns.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 12:23 AM) Many? If guns went away, what would the true impact be to society? Compare that to taking cars away. Huge difference and you know it. What would be the impact to society if cigarettes went away? Alcohol? Narcotics?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 11:14 PM) If you make a list of the pros and cons of allowing cars in society and allowing guns, the pros for cars would be exponentially higher. As strangesox pointed out the other day, you remove cars from society and the world we know right now would be drastically altered for the worse. Guns, IMO, are a nice to have and utterly unnecessary. That's why we put up with the deaths caused by accidents. Also, cars and drivers are heavily regulated by the government, from emissions standards to annual inspections to safety features, and so forth. You can't legally drive a car that doesn't feature seatbelts, or a car that spews too much exhaust into the air. You have to take both a written and a behind-the-wheel test to get a license to operate a car. You often have to renew that license at regular intervals and, if you're older, you have to prove that you're physically capable of driving a car. You can't drive a car while drinking alcohol or impaired by other chemicals. There are thousands of police officers patrolling our roads and, as most of us have experienced at one time or another, they will penalize or arrest you for improper handling of a car -- with literally hundreds of laws to abide, and considerable penalties, ranging from fines to imprisonment to the government stripping you of your right to drive a car at all. I'm not looping cars into the list of analogous products. Cars happen to be an extension of that, due to the fact that many people choose to operate them under the influence of intoxicants/narcotics. Alcohol/narcotics/cigarettes/guns are all fairly similar products to me. If utilized as the manufacturer intended, the odds for harm to innocent people rises dramatically. Reddy is pointing out that guns are intentionally used to harm people, whereas the others usually are not. While this may be true, if I am intentionally impairing myself to the point where I am no longer in control of myself, it does not simply excuse liability for my actions. And if I continually and habitually put myself in this position, it rises damn near intent. Additionally, I would guess that many intentional deaths due to guns are also carried out by people under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time.

Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. Each year in the United States alone, it is responsible for: An estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are current non-smokers About 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 11:03 PM) yes, they're analogous in the sense that a car can kill 30 people and so can a gun (though a single car killing 30 people seems a bit far fetched), but that's where it STOPS because the fact that one is *almost* intentional and one IS intentional means that they're not completely similar, and thus one can't be used to define the other! I just don't see the logic you're using. No. They are analogous in that if you use them as they are intended to be used, they drastically increase the odds of harm occurring, even without intent.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:57 PM) i didn't realize closer and closer meant the same thing as actually BEING intent. When did I say that any of these things were the exact same thing? I'm just bringing up other analogous products. a·nal·o·gous /əˈnaləgəs/ Comparable in certain respects, typically in a way that makes clearer the nature of the things compared.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:52 PM) you still aren't getting the intent part. even when you get plastered, you're still NOT INTENDING, NOT PLANNING, NOT EXPECTING to kill people. end of story man! Again, as I said, if you are continually repeating negligence, it gets closer and closer to intent.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:51 PM) My view on guns, posted earlier in the thread: "*Regulations governing how guns are attained* Yes, I think you should be allowed to own a gun if you want to, but there needs to be a thorough background check, waiting period, psychiatric evaluation, and potentially even a registry that shows how many guns and what kind a person has/owns. Don't see what's wrong with all that - in fact, we do all of that when giving someone a driver's license, so why not with guns?" Tell me what's unreasonable about this. The driver's license test requires a psych evaluation?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:48 PM) give me one other product that can intentionally level 30 people in 60 seconds Well, I assume you mean a product when operated as the manufacturer intended it to be? How about almost any motor vehicle?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:45 PM) they still don't do it ON PURPOSE. Malice of forethought. it's a thing. good grief. There are all sorts of people, myself included at times, who have driven a vehicle somewhere, knowing full-well they might get hammered, with full intent to drive that vehicle home again. Certainly they don't intend to kill anyone, but once you repeat massive negligence habitually, the line between intent grows much thinner.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:43 PM) ughhhh now you're comparing manufacturing and safe work environments to gun contol? is there anything you WON'T try to equate with this topic? just ridiculous strawman arguments all around. I was just responding to your statement. I'm actually on your side of this. I have never even held a real gun, let alone shot one. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other analogous products that are perfectly lawful that cause similar harm, whether directly or indirectly.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:41 PM) straight up bulls***. Is it? I disagree. If you allow enough people to operate motor vehicles while under the influence of some intoxicating substance, it is pretty much a statistical fact that some percentage of those people or others they come into contact with will be injured or die.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:37 PM) you (generally speaking) can't legislate to prevent accidents from happening. You absolutely can. Why do you think such strict safety and health regulations exist in so many industries?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:36 PM) Over 30k people in the country were intentionally killed with guns last year. That's the difference. People don't use a cigarette or bump of coke to intentionally kill others. One could make a pretty good argument that the way alcohol/drugs/tobacco are used in our society that the difference between intent and "indirect" is pretty slim.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:33 PM) not at ALL in the same way guns do - with INTENT. Which is why I said directly or indirectly. And as was noted earlier, there are all kinds of accidental gun deaths every year.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 11:30 PM) *sigh* good point. bad example. they do kill other people. the main crux of my argument remains. guns kill other people who DID NOT CHOOSE to have it happen. not so with drugs etc ? Sure they do. Drugs cause the direct and indirect deaths of all kinds of people. Guns, booze, narcotics, cigarettes...they all are similar in that society seemingly tolerates them or tries not to (but they exist anyways due to extraordinary demand) and they cause harm to innocent people, directly and indirectly.

Def Leppard is playing the Hard Rock Hotel in Vegas during March Madness...I highly advise all you thirty-forty-somthings to book your room packages now and join me!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 11:39 AM) Then they shouldn't be scared about losing lots and lots of users. Having something free is a great way to attract lots of interest and use. People will use things when it's free that they won't pay a small amount for. If that is unacceptable to a company's long term business model, then it needs a different long term business model. Funny thing is, most people would probably enter a contest to get their picture used by advertisers on tv or in print

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) meh, maybe, but neither of us wants that so why should we do it? Because it will give you clarity as to what the hell you are doing in the first place? When you break up, many times both parties miss eachother. Neither of you want to miss eachother. So why should you continue to be apart? Because it needs to be done.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 12:23 PM) hmm... i feel like it would be the weaker choice to jump back into a relationship and pretend nothing's wrong... which would be extremely easy for both of us to do (she even said this) Yeah, that would be weaker. But you probably should not be going on these dates and just have a clean break.

It seems to me that both of you are just too weak to do what needs to be done right now...and that usually ends badly. I don't think she is seeing anyone else. But I do think the things that caused you to break up in the first place won't just go away unless someone is willing to make a major compromise. Otherwise, the same thing that happened a month ago or whenever will probably just keep repeating itself until it ends more permanently.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:54 AM) Wouldn't it be great, if instead of that money going to a bankrupt company's lawyers, that money was spent developing new products that benefit future consumers? No? Oh, right, our IP system is working wonderfully. link

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 09:39 PM) Gigabit speed internet coming to my neighborhood! This calls for a steak dinner and firing a few rounds off of your semi-automatic!