Phoenix Wright
-
Posts
5,329 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Phoenix Wright
-
-
it didn't make sense; the band is from cali :p (altho tbh i thought they were canadian cause of weird al)
-
what a week. feel bad for the niners. i don't want to play the seahawks in the playoffs.
amazing upset from the giants. that was beautiful. lions played a great game. excited to see jackson play again next week. plus a good fight from the raiders, which was a surprise.
oh yeah, and packers lost.
and steelers lost lmfao
-
what a sad, sad statistic.
question: in practice, no. failure to acknowledge civil injustice is as bad as being ok with it. (because both will lead to the problem never being solved.)
-
mexico natl team
-
dude is looking decent. excited to see the falcons and chiefs game in the coming weeks.
-
3 hours ago, Parrhesia said:
packers? fake, bad at football. green bay? shitty overrated band, american idiot was contrarian garbage. vikings? cool, good
day
rams had a horrible bye-week, but at least the packers lost, steelers lost, browns won
-
On 11/21/2018 at 6:09 PM, Shoblongoo said:
aside: i'm not sure of the scale (i'm assuming it's linear, so 2 is twice as dangerous, 3 3x as dangerous, etc), but if i'm being honest i'm amazed that the u.s. is as safe as it is given all the factors involved. while i think we could do much, much better, being less safe than tiny countries (either by population or land area) doesn't really concern me much.
i mean, say we somehow solved our mass shooting problem. that'd bring us down to what...2.2? 2.1? if that?
-
here's to hoping their division can put them in their place...
-
3 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:
Based on talking to people that live out in the country -- the particular state that I've heard mentioned by name is Maine -- many times civilization is like 20 miles out from where you are. It's not as easy to rely on law enforcement for guns and you also need it for self-defense against wild animals.
That's the perspective I've heard on this, in which case I would pretty much agree with the bit on having a license to operate certain firearms. This being one of those cases.
i'm a city boy and never imagined this. good point!
-
6 hours ago, Tryhard said:
props for effort
thanks. and also @eclipse: :D
2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:If you lean towards gun control:
What kinds of guns specifically do you feel we should ban? What regulations do we need?
Would you agree there are parts of the nation that need guns to live more or better?
How would you propose implementing bans on guns that have been commercially available for years?
How long do you believe gun reform will actually take?
Do you believe the media posting manifestos and pictures of the gunmen (in other words, ideology) is more of a motivating factor than guns?
i mostly agree with shob but anyway:
1. the good ol AR-15! get that shit out of here! it's too efficient and reliable. there was so infographic that i saw on fb that noted many of our mass shootings are done using that rifle. that may not be true, and i would accept being wrong, but as it stands right now i want that gun out of civilian hands unless it's being used on a gun
2. nope. it doesn't make sense in any context.
3. ban them and advertise later. make people hate guns the way we do with tobacco.
4. at least a decade.
5. i think there's good evidence to suggest that we shouldn't be giving these gunmen the light of day.
22 minutes ago, Johann said:I'm surprised that this troll isn't just straight up banned
i feel like he should be banned from responding here tbh. or put this tangent in another topic. i got a sense of humor and all, but i'd like to honor these deceased and broken people with at least a mildly honest discussion.
-
hell yeah brother, cheers from iraq
QuoteName one country where someone wasn't jailed for "hate speech". I'll wait.
this is a dumbass response lol. i legitimately don't understand any part of this.
QuoteWhy do you wanna ban guns, huh?
because they're d a n g e r o u s.
QuoteBecause they are kill?
yes.
QuoteSo do cars.
did you know that there are laws and regulations concerning vehicles? and not just the vehicles, dude! there are also laws concerning the operation of vehicles. they're called traffic laws!
Quoteand Your entire argument is based purely in emotion.
assuming there exists no arguments that could possibly refute the idea of gun freedoms. ooookay
QuoteFreedom doesn't care about feelings, and neither do I,
go you.
Quotewhen it comes to basic human rights.
based off of your post history this is demonstrably false. in fact, guns rights > people's rights.
QuoteDo guns walk and oppress people? Do guns decide to kill people? No.
they're tools used to do so. and they're damn good at it too.
QuoteThey're just as dangerous as cars.
first of all, apples to oranges. second of all, source.
QuoteThe car isn't a living being.
my best friend is a car, dude. have some respect.
QuoteWe ban guns,
not ban, just tighter control.
Quotewe ban every basic human right,
wait what?
Quoteand become a tyranny.
the united states is already tyrannical in a number of ways. i'd like to undo that.
QuoteAnd that is unAmerican.
any argument that tries to argue something is un-american is un-american.
QuoteYou can virtue signal all you want,
ironically, it's you who's doing this.
Quotebut that doesn't work on me.
i'm assuming not much works for you.
QuoteI don't automatically believe "survivors of sexual assault" just because they are a "victim".
wow.
QuoteDoing so says "every accused person is guilty unless PROVEN innocent".
flawless logic.
QuoteThis is America, the most free country in the world.
spoken like a true american who's never gone farther than 5 miles from their house.
QuoteHate America? Don't go.
what in god's name are you fucking talking about at this point?
QuoteJust like with entertainment. Don't like, say, Goblin Slayer? Don't watch it. Yes, there's a rape scene in the first episode. But hating the entire show because of one scene is like hating The Cosby Show just because Bill is in it. That's unjustifiable, and irrational.
ohhhhhhhhh.
you're trolling.
-
48 minutes ago, CapnStix said:
No gun control. I swear, people are anti-gun just to look good. In America, it's the right of every citizen to possess firearms. To stop tyranny and/or crazy/bad people. Less government is good. It's not their job to take care of us. Their job is to keep the country running. The legislative is to make laws, the judicial to enforce those rules with the help of cops, whom I wholeheartedly support, regardless of circumstance, and the executive branch basically just lets the laws become laws.
America is free because of free speech, where you can say racial slurs or promote bad ideas and not be put in jail for that. We have freedom of speech, or 1A, because we have freedom to bear arms, or 2A. Limiting arms destroys any semblance of freedom, and screw that...I sure ain't down for that.
to illustrate why your posts have not made much sense to this point:
if we removed weaponry from the military would less, more, or the same amount of people die? how efficient would we be at killing? (hint: it's not a surprise that wars, on average, have been much shorter while simultaneously killing orders of magnitude more people with the advent of guns. guns were made to kill, dude.)
your idealistic ravings don't reflect reality--made worse by the fact that your libertarian values are passed as fact with an argument with as strong a foundation as a house of cards (tm).
lots of other countries have free speech lol.
owning black people was a right of every citizen too. that's not an argument for why we ought to own slaves. likewise, that there is a right under the constitution to own firearms does not mean we ought own firearms, or that it is moral to do nothing in the wake of tragedy after tragedy after tragedy after tragedy after tragedy after tragedy after tragedy after tragedy after tragedy after tragedy after tragedy after tragedy after tragedy
-
20 hours ago, Slumber said:
The Bills are now slightly better than pizza with pineapple on it. The Cardinals should be the new "Wow they're terrible" team.
what a weird week.
despite being terrible, i'm impressed they held the chiefs to the lowest score of the year.
21 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:That was a treat. The Titans held down the Pats the entire game and didn't give them the edge. That was a really good game, @chococoke.
i hate the titans but not anywhere close to how much i hate the pats! very uncharacteristic of them.
more rams defense woes. they've got a bad sense of "bend, don't break."
edit: weird flex but ok.
-
well, the game was disappointing, but i think the most important thing is that i definitely saw the potential for a win from the rams there. the last 3 weeks could've gone either way, and it's because of our defense this time. peters needs to be better. our offense was on fire.
i don't mind a loss. it's ok for a superbowl-bound team to not look on top of things every once in a while. and tbh, this wasn't that bad a showing by the defense. they gave the saints a 21-point head start after all...
i wanna see a first round bye. i don't care how the season goes as long as we get that. when we meet the saints again we're taking the w.
On 10/30/2018 at 9:46 PM, Lewyn said:It is true teams usually come out very strong after biweek. However what wasn't surprising is Aaron Rodgers being good, it was more how great overall their defense seemed through much of the game. They were getting a lot of pressure fairly consistently on Jared Goff, and they were mostly really good at containing runs up the gut.
The Pats...it is always hard to bet against them. If a team beats them it is almost never easy, and so often they completely take the opposing team out of their element and comfort zone. Still I'm definitely watching the game. The MJ promo was a nice touch hyping it as Rodgers vs Brady. Though we know with football being the ultimate team sport it is pretty darn hard to make such comparisons.
i'm confused by what happened in the 4th quarter. the packers were playing pretty amazingly up until 11 minutes left to the game. i don't follow the packers too closely, but that's pretty atypical, right?
-
jesus christ...
-
i dunno, looking at it holistically, packers are too reliant on one or two players (you know who they are). even with 2 weeks of prep, they still weren't able to dominate once we got the safety. i don't have high hopes for them against the pats, despite how badly i want the pats to lose.
i think each the nfcn doesn't know who the hell should be dominant. it seems to change week to week.
-
i didnt realize green bay sucked so much. :/
this browns drive is fucking hilarious. browns showing lack of football knowledge by not getting an immediate touchdown tho.
-
2 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:
Please be respectful. Even Trump wants to fry this guy, and that's saying something. It may be true, but this isn't the time to do something like this.
is it? is that really saying something? is saying a man belongs in prison for mailing bombs to political opponents of your enemies really something to be applauded in your mind?
do not lower your standards of morality because it's trump. demand better. fuck that guy, fuck trump, and fuck any politician that tries to vilify the left in light of this. this is absolutely insane.
-
i think it's called slicing in golf or something.
-
7 hours ago, FrostyFireMage said:
For the record, that 2% false-accusation rate doesn't account for all of the accusations that cannot ever be truly proven true or false. If somebody is that quick to ruin a man's life over the testimony of a woman that cannot be proven or disproven they clearly don't place much value on male lives. And when I see stuff like this in the news I think this whole "guilty until proven guilty" mindset is just hurting the cause of people wanting to make things better.
Sorry if I've offended anyone with what I've said; it definitely wasn't my intention or anything.
you see? even now you refuse to see that anyone besides you might have a point. you shift the goal posts in order to tell yourself you're still rational.
i cannot stand to see this shit because this board is full of people like this. you're not offending anyone; in fact, what you're doing is a disservice to yourself.
-
2 hours ago, FrostyFireMage said:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-new-home/201810/rape-allegations
"Even strong advocates for rape victims admit that false accusations sometimes occur. The real debate is regarding the frequency of these false claims. Some suggest that only 2% of rape accusations are false (a rate that is similar to that of non-sex offenses), while others state that the rate is higher (e.g., 8%). According to a few sources, the rate is significantly higher (e.g., 40%)."
you're not being rational. to be rational isn't the same as being centrist, or contrarian, or whatever. it is both accepting truth and understanding what truth looks like. what you are doing is very irrational--you ignore facts for your own worldview.
to assert that false rape allegations are as high as 40% is absolutely preposterous to the point where something in your brain should be yelling at you after reading something like that. if it were really as high as 40%, life would look a lot different in the united states. indeed, if you had read the source, as time the crestfallen has pointed out, you'd know that it's not actually the case. moreover, no one would ever assert it as the case.
now, i don't think psychology today is america's #1 source or anything, so i don't blame you if you'd like to see a quantified explanation for such a high variance. but, you're simply not thinking about the issue as rationally as you might have convinced yourself you are.
-
41 minutes ago, FrostyFireMage said:
Do you actually have any proof of that claim?
-
1 hour ago, XRay said:
The missing limb is an analogy to how severe it is. Emotionally, it is as if a limb is missing. A missing limb is not something like a scar that you can just forget about and move on from. You will always see it, or at least it is always in the back of your mind.
yes, but to remain consistent with your earlier argument: 'Living with the trauma is like dying on the inside. People can overcome it, but it is like living with all your limbs chopped off being bound to wheelchair. Not everyone wants to live through that kind of crap. Obviously, most victims are not going to go kill themselves since living is strong [sic] pretty strong instinct, but between dying via head shot and living through hell, I would pick head shot.'
i don't see the parallels.
1 hour ago, Johann said:Never said one was worse than the other, just that rape/sexual assault can seriously damage a person for life. This can potentially be in ways that leads them down self-destructive paths, including suicide.
1fair enough and i agree. didn't mean to misrepresent your argument. some argue that it is strictly worse, so that is what i was responding to.
i probably should get back on topic...
-
12 hours ago, XRay said:
Yes. Any crime that severely damages a person's dignity and self worth would have the same tune sung from my mouth.
Not everyone can work past their trauma. Saying there are sufficient ways to deal with trauma is like telling victims to just go Google a solution and get on with life. Sure, victims can manage trauma and live life normally, but the trauma that sexual assault victims go through is more akin to a missing limb rather than a simple scar.
1? i don't understand why you'd say this. moreover, in the literal sense, is having a limb removed reason enough to stop living? should cutting off someone's arm or leg be treated harsher than murder?
11 hours ago, Johann said:Yeah, of my friends who have experience sexual assault, there are some common issues they deal with in relation to that on a daily basis, particularly involving their ability to trust others and cope with stressful situations. These are issues that can potentially interfere with their personal and professional lives, and are as serious and challenging as any other mental health problem.
ok sure, but this is present throughout all forms of trauma. i don't understand why this means rape is worse than murder.
8 hours ago, eclipse said:Yes. I know multiple people in my family that went through non-rape trauma, and they haven't been the same since.
i am sorry to hear that. truthfully, i am the same way. but there's never been a point where i'd have rather died.
7 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:Although the help exists, you also can't forget that people have to reach out for that help and they don't necessarily do it.
In the Kavanaugh debacle, recall that...
to a therapist for couple's counseling.
You could be a normal person just going to a psychiatrist to see if they may find any problem with you, come out of it being told you're completely fine but if people hear of such visits, it's generally followed with stigma.
but that's not an issue for crimes that cause severe trauma per se, it's a result of a terrible aspect of our current culture--it needs to change. we can never rid the world of any one violent crime, but we can definitely improve the ways we help people deal with them. that the current response in our aid to victims of said crimes is extremely poor isn't evidence that rape is strictly worse than murder.
2018/19 NFL Season (the Buffalo Bills are worse than pizza with pineapple on it)
in Entertainment
Posted
sports was...sports this week @integrity. very mixed.