Lurker > bshwalker

I do it for free so yes
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

WaffIeElite posted...

My whole life, because I'm not a dumbass with money.

Yup
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

Tauros posted...

bshwalker posted...

Yea but where does it say that God burns people's souls for all eternity, for 70-90 years of sin?

Edit-
I've done quite a bit of research on this and can only find one scripture that referred to someone burning and gnashing his teeth, but it was in an illustration.
I found quite a few scriptures that say that once you're dead, you cease to exist and are conscious of nothing at all.

The Bible is an outdated book written by men thousands of years ago, and people still reference it like it's something with value in today's modern society.

The people on this world are just purely insane.

Even still, the outdated book doesn't say anything about burning forever.
It seems to come from Greek mythology.
So if that's the case, even the outdated book isn't being referenced as an original source.
That being the case, there's nothing to fear about "hell" and this lady saw nothing but visuals from her own mind.
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

Yea but where does it say that God burns people's souls for all eternity, for 70-90 years of sin?

Edit-
I've done quite a bit of research on this and can only find one scripture that referred to someone burning and gnashing his teeth, but it was in an illustration.
I found quite a few scriptures that say that once you're dead, you cease to exist and are conscious of nothing at all.
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

Where in the Bible, does it say that
Hell is a place of torture?
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

No
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

Knowledge and wisdom
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

Guess that's what happens when you pre-hydrate with tacos before a match...
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

alimajor posted...

Glad I don't eat meatand

Made me laugh until I had tears running down my face.
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

No fear of non existence.
Actually, when I think about it, being unaware of how stupid the world is, I actually look foreword to it.
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

The greatest character I ever made was-
Skyrim- male wood elf that looked just like Louie De Palma from the old tv show Taxi.
I used mods, of course, but that character was epic! Alchemy and speech craft only.
I gotta do that again, it was hilarious!!
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

I always play as a woman because I have a deeply hidden desire to be one and a longing to submit to the manly man male dude guy that will dominate my very sensual and eager body and soul.

Now that I've given all the "I play as a man because I'm a man!" types what they wanna hear, my real answer is-

It depends on the game, the lore and what my goal is.
I freely play both, because I can.
After a long break, Im back in Skyrim, I'm rolling 2 characters- A hermit male, and poisoner female.
It's how I see it.
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

Asherlee-
Your sig is magnificent!!
Is that a quote or did you come up with it?
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

ClockworkHare posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

ClockworkHare posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

ClockworkHare posted...

And some guys don't even need to sit down when taking a poop.

???

It's common among tall fit men using average to smaller sized toilets. Some of them just squat over the bowl rather than sit on it, because they don't have wimpy chicken legs, they're not obese, and their bowel movements take no longer than a few minutes (good diet).

You'll have to excuse me if I don't sympathize with able-bodied young men who are so weak they need the seat to take a shit that requires 15-30 minutes because they refuse to hydrate and eat enough fiber.

If a guy is so short he's basically forced to use the seat, that's respectively an exception.

You're telling me that tall men don't actually sit on the toilet sometimes to have a bowel movement?

Yup.

That doesn't make sense. It's been proven that squatting results in a more productive bowel movement. Being tall should be an advantage.
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

Soviet_Shurima posted...

ClockworkHare posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

ClockworkHare posted...

And some guys don't even need to sit down when taking a poop.

???

It's common among tall fit men using average to smaller sized toilets. Some of them just squat over the bowl rather than sit on it, because they don't have wimpy chicken legs, they're not obese, and their bowel movements take no longer than a few minutes (good diet).

You'll have to excuse me if I don't sympathize with able-bodied young men who are so weak they need the seat to take a shit that requires 15-30 minutes because they refuse to hydrate and eat enough fiber.

If a guy is so short he's basically forced to use the seat, that's respectively an exception.

sitting on the shitter is like

a moment of meditation, bro

YEP!!
It's one of the high points of the day!
Sittin' there thinkin' in silence...
most of the time...
In fact, the men's restroom is like a monastery. It's a place of solitude and quiet.
It's such a moving experience, moving the seat down or up isn't even a factor! We just do it because the reward is in the journey!
A journey begins with the first step. The first step is a piece of cake, so much so, it's not even noticed by us men.

Women should learn from this, lol!
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

Modern liberated woman-
"I'm not cooking for a man, and I'm sure not going to pick up after one. I'm not his mother! He can take care of himself, I'm not his housekeeper!

Why can't you put the toilet seat down for me?! You should be more thoughtful of me!!"

See how it sounds?
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

As far as training the mind goes or being a creature of habit-
It depends on environmental upbringing to some extent.
I've been in the outdoors for my entire life.
The outdoors changes constantly.
Being a creature of habit can put you in a life and death situation in hurry.
You learn to look for the unexpected, constantly.
Usually, the people that get into trouble weren't being observant or paying attention.
I've had a couple of mishaps and they were because I ignored my own knowledge and didn't account for temperature change. The first one could have gotten my bran new wife killed from heat in the desert and the second could have gotten me killed from hypothermia.
Anyway, paying attention and looking for change isn't difficult as long as you're used to it.
Home is a bit different because that's the one place that you should be able to let your guard down.
If by nature, you're observant because of how you live, you don't get set so solidly on being a creature of habit.
That goes back to all the variables tha I mentioned above, though
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

This is not an easily answered question. There are countless variables as to why a person gets angry if the seat is up or something is out of place.
Temperaments, personality, gender roles, view of oneself in a relationship...
No simple answer.
Personally, I've always just put the whole thing down, lid and all, at home.
Outside the home, leave no trace. Regardless of what I do, I make it look like I was never there.
Bathroom ninja.

Edit-
Asherlee, I was never confused or misunderstood what you were saying. I called it being a creature of habit. You gave it a scientific name. I learned something new today. Thx!
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

So this sounds like if you're used to the seat being down all the time, it's everyone else's responsibility to not be pre programmed and check for the one that can't or won't re-train their mind?
Because the argument of "My mind expects the seat to be down" can work the other way.
Since the topic asks the question "Why do women get mad when the seats up?" And the answer is because the mind is used to it being down, then the original question in the topic is even more valid.
Why get mad at the male when his mind is just as locked down as the females?
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

Better brush up on my rock slingin' skills...
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

My interest is the same.
My genre is dead.
So I watch, wait and expect little.
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

Smarkil posted...

Zangrief posted...

I donate over 10% of my income per year to charities. Not all of them US based. So stick that presumption up your ass.

Only 10% Wow. That's next to nothing bro. Just 30 cents more out of your wallet and you could save a life.

But instead you're being a selfish asshole and donating only 10% of your income. You make me fucking sick.

I was reading this topic, as I do all political topics, for entertainment.
Then I read this.
Please tell us that you're being sarcastic.
If you're not, your math skills are so poor you should not add another post to this topic.
10% is more than 30 cents per day unless he makes less than 900 per month
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

MasterAdeptAlex posted...

bshwalker posted...

My eyes got bigger, my hair fell out and what's left of it is long, my posture got really bad, I've lost too much weight, most of my teeth are gone and the ones that are left are pointy, I've developed a disgusting cough and I lost my ring!

Gollum reference from Lord of the Rings?

Yep!
Serious answer-
It's just called age. Can't avoid it. Other than some mild weight gain and going bald (easily fixed by shaving my head) I'm pretty much the same.
I love where I am mentally, now and wouldn't trade it for youth or anything else.
I'm happy in life.
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

My eyes got bigger, my hair fell out and what's left of it is long, my posture got really bad, I've lost too much weight, most of my teeth are gone and the ones that are left are pointy, I've developed a disgusting cough and I lost my ring!
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

YoukaiSlayer posted...

I feel because it was the criminals who chose to willingly participate in the crime, their deaths should not legally be on her hands. If anyone innocent had died, I'm all for charging her with murder, but it seems silly to be charged for that reason.

To go to the purse snatching example, what would have happened if the old lady was fine but the thief had a heart attack? Would the friend that fled the scene with him be charged for the murder of the thief? Thats obviously absurd. I'm not really here to argue what the law is, just what it should be (since laws do get changed and all). Charging her with accessory to armed robbery seems fine to me.

Of course, luck does tend to play a part in your punishment. A drunk driver who swerves off the road and hits a tree committed the exact same actions as a drunk driver who swerves off the road onto a sidewalk with people on it but the punishment will of course be very different because of the different result.

There is clearly nothing wrong with the shooting itself. Even if they appear unarmed, the burden of finding that out for sure shouldn't be on the home owner. You break into a house, you accept you may get shot to death with no one to blame but yourself. No extra risk should have to be taken by the innocent person living at the home.

Very nice post with thought provoking questions!
Actually, what you said there was going to be my final post on the subject.
Laws can and should be changed.
Sometimes the law is taken advantage of in order to satisfy a desire for retribution.
I genuinely have no opinion on this.
It's another tragedy among thousands every day.
No amount of applied justice can do what really would be the only way to make this all right-
Go back in time and prevent the whole thing from happening in the first place...

Make good choices, people.
Bad ones cannot be reversed.
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

Ok, why is Charles Manson in jail?
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

According to some of the logic here, if a drunk driver hits a tree and the tree falls on a group of people and kills them, nothing should happen to the driver because he/she didn't intend to kill anyone, nor did he/she intend to crash.
Try pulling that off in court.
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

Because it's the law.
The law is why we have a judicial system.
A person is charged with something based on a set of rules that were established, written and preserved as guidelines for conduct.
If those guidelines are violated, the rules (laws) call for certain penalties. (Charges)
They didn't pull this out of thin air. They're following the guidelines, or the law.
It's her fault for not educating herself on the law.
I'm sure you guys see how it works, whether you like it or not.
Now that you know, are you going to run around with fools that can endanger your freedom because of what they do?
No.
She could have chose to do the same.
She didn't.
She created all of the conditions that led to 3 deaths.
She chose...
Poorly.
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

Cacciato posted...

bshwalker posted...

So what should she be charged with?
All she did was drive to and from the house.
That's not illegal.

Are you fucking kidding me

No.
I'm trying to understand the Darknights line of thinking.
The very next post shows that.
I can't get on board with anyone that doesn't understand why she is charged with murder.
She planned the whole thing and took them there.
She is an accessory to a crime. A crime where 3 people were killed because the plan went into a tailspin and hit the ground.
You don't charge people for what they intended to do. They get charged for what happened.
It was her very own actions, against someone that she knew, that resulted in 3 people being killed.
It is how the law works.

I used an example earlier of a real life event. Two guys were crossing a street, one of them decides to snatch an old ladies purse. She falls and hits her head on the ground. She was taken to the hospital and had a heart attack a few days later. Not only did the snatcher get charged with murder but the other guy was charged as well because he chose to run away with the snatcher, making himself an accomplice.
Neither one of them killed or meant to kill the lady, but it was the actions that created the circumstances that led to her death. By joining his friend, the other guy, that had been doing nothing but walking across the street with his idiotic friend, became an accomplice.
If a person plans and organizes a bank robbery, his accomplices get killed by the police, the mastermind is charged with the deaths of his accomplices because he/she created the circumstances with the deaths.
Whether that charge sticks will be determined in court. It can be reduced or proven there, not on arrest.
The mastermind is not an accomplice. They are the creator.
We will just have to disagree on this. It makes perfect sense to me. The court is where it all gets worked out.
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

"You're missing the point - your argument was "they brought knives and other weapons, so clearly they had ill intent". I don't deny that's true... but that's not what the woman is being charged for. She's being charged not because those weapons were used in a murder, but because a different weapon (which she had no way of knowing about) was used by a different person (who she did not know) and wound up killing the people involved with the crime. If you really want to see how lousy this argument is, note that if the robbers were all completely unarmed, with no apparent intent to use violence in the robbery, the murder charges STILL would have been laid.'
The different weapon was used because of the weapons that were brought for ill intent. It was a reaction to an action started by people that were in a home that wasn't theirs. Nobody knows what anyone has in their house. That stops normal people from entering them without an invitation.

I'm sad that these 3 people were killed. But they could have prevented it if they stayed home and did something else, even the driver.

If someone plans an illegal act and the players get themselves killed, does the mastermind get to just walk away, free?
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

So what should she be charged with?
All she did was drive to and from the house.
That's not illegal.
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

Lil_Bit83 posted...

vicedungwinsgam posted...

how in fucks name is the getaway driver facing murder charges

that's the dumbest shit i've ever heard of

I have no idea. I can understand the driver being jailed as an accomplice to the crime, but not for murder. That's dumb.

It's the law.
If a person dies during the commission of a crime, all parties involved are charged with murder.
As I mentioned before, even if a person suffers a fatal heart attack during a crime, those commitng the crime are charged with murder.
The driver drove 3 people to a house to commit a crime. The crime led to 3 fatalities. It doesn't matter that the criminals were the ones killed. Had she not driven them there, she wouldn't be charged with anything. As far as the law is concerned, she drove 3 people to a location and they were killed as a result of her actions.
The resident was defending himself from invaders with deadly weapons. She brought them there assuming that they wouldn't have been killed. She was wrong.
Her actions set the following actions in motion.
The law doesn't flex or sway. Her being charged with murder is the default.
She should have known that.
The law is based on the theory of people knowing that.
It's not the laws fault that she didn't spend more time learning about the law instead of orchestrating criminal activity.
She was ignorant.
Now she's charged with murder.
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~

Several things-
They broke into a home with an armed man holding an AR-15 and there was an exchange of words.
The exchange of words should have been-
"Get outta my house!!"
"Ooooo! He has a gun!! Sorry sir we'll be leaving now!"
That's all.
Who argues with an armed man in his own home?!
The three people that could've told you aren't able to, anymore.

Brass knuckles and knives are considered deadly weapons. When a deadly weapon is brandished in front of an officer, deadly force is justifiable. Same thing applies to someone that enters your home with deadly weapons. It doesn't matter if they intended to just intimidate. That would require mind reading abilities that don't exist. Safety laws and requirements are based on worst case scenario. An armed intruder times 3 is a safety concern. The worst case scenario is allowed as an interpretation.

If you and your friend are crossing the street and your friend, out of the blue, snatches an old lady's purse and she has a heart attack and dies from fear, he will be arrested for murder. If you stop and try to help the lady, you have separated yourself from the purse snatcher and the crime. You're a witness. If you run away with him, you are part of the crime and get charged with murder, too. Loss of life during the act of a crime will get all parties involved charged for murder. It's how the law works. It can be argued down in court. In the meantime it's a charge of murder.
If she hadn't drove them there, it wouldn't have happened. As s result, her actions allowed the deaths to occur. She's the cause because she was party to it.
If that seems unfair, then she should have stayed home that night and she wouldn't be involved in an event that led to loss of life. That too, is how the law works.
The law is the law and doesn't care if anyone agrees with it or not.
People that agree with it, tend to not get killed in other people's homes dressed in black carrying weapons
---

Being called nostalgic is a compliment. Thanks for noticing!
~C.O.I.~