Raider5678

I'm unsure additional compassion and caring is the right way to solve it either. It's like an egg. If it's cracked, it's not like you're going to be able to put it back together if you start taking care of it now. Additionally, there are people who were treated way worse and didn't decide they had to turn around and do it on others.

No. Which is why I said you were implying she was convicted out of revenge, not justice. And since revenge is typically worse than justice, what would have been the appropriate sentence for her? Since you apparently understand why she did it.

"When justice becomes revenge, it's because we don't understand." Unless I'm wrong, you were saying that she was convicted out of revenge, not justice, because we don't understand why the woman did what she did.

If you consider putting that woman in jail revenge, what would you even consider justice? Letting her go because she was mentally ill? All I said, sometimes what they do is inexcusable. You can't excuse it with "They weren't loved or nurtured enough as children." or "They didn't realize what they were doing was wrong." Sometimes you can. I agree. But with something like this, she knew what she was doing was wrong. She knew, for a fact, that hurting Slyvia was wrong. She didn't just "forget" about it.

The murder of Sylvia Likens. Over the period of three months, the caretaker of 16 year old Sylvia Likens did the following things on a daily basis: Extinguishing lit cigarettes on her bare skin. Medical examinations put it at more then 100 times. Beating her. Starving her. Tying her up. Forcing her to eat her own feces and urine. Clubbing her with large objects. Clawing her back. Using her as "judo" practice. Mauling her vagina. Lacerating her. Pouring boiling hot water on her. Rubbing salt in her wounds. Forcing her to masturbate with glass bottles. Forcing her to eat ridiculous things, and when she threw it up making her eat it the vomit. Publically tied down and put into a bathtub filled with scolding hot water. Restrained so that other people could come and rub salt in her wounds as "punishment" Had words carved onto her skin. Forced her to write a letter saying she did all this to herself. She died. A slow, horrible, miserable death. Perhaps you can say to yourself that you can't really blame this woman for what she did. That she only needed nurture and understanding. But I don't give a damn. There is nothing about that, that will ever allow me to understand why she did it and feel bad for her instead. And the victim sure as hell wouldn't either. She claimed insanity at the trial. This wasn't addressed to me, but no. The mentally ill need understanding. But not everything can be excused just because you understand it. I can understand why someone could become angry and kill someone. That doesn't mean I excuse it.

Heinous. Sometimes, you can't simply attribute the wrongs somebody has done to lack of understanding and nurture. Nor can you simply attribute what someone has done wrong to mental illness. Sometimes what they've done was just wrong. And it can be that simple. Am I saying it's always their fault directly? No. But sometimes it is. If everyone could point to themselves, say it was due to lack of nurture and bad upbringing, and we accepted it, we could never convict anyone of anything.

I was trying to provide an example that there are regulations outside of the national level on the state level. That was the first and most obvious one that came to my mind.

That sounds a lot like "Criminals don't follow laws." But yeah, it applies because there are regulations on guns. He said it was aneconomy with virtually zero regulations on guns. Which is true on a national level, but I had to point out that on a state level, it doesn't hold up. We're all here for being open minded and learning more. So I was provided more information on the subject, to help show him a blindspot in his view on guns.

Forget Tony Stark. Think Batman. Self-made billionaire, who has his hands in many companies simultaneously. He's in the computer business, the A.I. business, the automobile business, the internet business, the space business, and even in the biotech industry.

The sad part is, having read that, it isn't even on my radar as one of the most heinous cases I've ever heard.

That is true. However, every year my pastor and a group of men from my church head up to New York to go hunting. My pastor doesn't carry but a couple of the other guys do. And they're all big advocates of state rights. While they don't like the law, they abide by it by stopping. Although usually every year there is one person who suggests they didn't really need to stop. Same guy every time.

You almost had me all the way towards the end. Gun regulations on a national level are very slack, I very much agree. But on a state level? It varies enormously. Take Maryland. If I wanted to drive to New York, and I was bringing a handgun(I wouldn't, because I don't hunt with one. Nor do I carry.) I'd have to stop the car before I got into Maryland, put the handgun in one case, put the ammo in the other, and have it like that while I drive through Maryland. Even if I don't stop. Just driving through. And I don't have a problem with that. States should be allowed to make their laws. But when you say "practically zero regulations" you're talking about a national level. That's because every time it comes up people get on their rooftops and scream communism. Or some other pointless nonrelated argument. "He was born in Africa!!!" sound familiar? Regardless though, states individually, almost all have their own gun regulations. From assualt rifle permits, to hand gun licences, etc. And before you say it: There are states with virtually none. These states also happen to be some of the least populated states. Major ones like New York, Pennsylvania, California, Florida, etc, all have gun laws. (I'm not arguing against gun laws or anything. I just wanted to provide more information, other then that part it was a fairly accurate post.)

I have a lot of people saying "Money is actually worthless paper. Why do we bother even using it?" Now I know that's not what you're saying, don't take me the wrong way for saying that. But money in and of itself is a very useful thing to have. If we only bartered in the things that had an actual use, we would barter in many different things. From metal to food, to medicine, to clothing, to cars, etc. Ultimately, there will be a time where you desperately need something, but since nobody needs what you're trading, you can't get it. Say you need medicine. Badly. But all you have is stockpiles of food because you just harvested everything you needed. You go to get medicine, but nobody will trade with you because they don't need food. Ultimately, the fluctuations of value will be extreme, because some people will be more desperate than others. While you might be willing to trade 5 pounds of food for the medicine, someone more desperate might be willing to pay 20 pounds of food for it. But then someone with a twenty-foot roll of copper wire that the man selling the medicine needs much more than food. So he takes the copper wire and you're stuck with your food, no medicine, and have wasted plenty of time. And don't even get me started on how badly inequality would be. Do you realize how hard it is to trade houses for food/belongings? Most people would only get to rent with a monthly quota, while the landowners get a very easy living. They need only demand what they need. And paying taxes as well. How would you do that? Collect a different item from each region? And what about minimum wage? How is that decided when the value of items can fluctuate by 200% every hour, let alone 5% in 7 years. The value of money is in its usefulness. You can look at the rarity of an item alongside with the usefulness. Just because it has no practical use, doesn't make something not useful. But there will always be the hippy who says there is no value to money and we should ignore it. I'd rather not because those people have no idea what they're talking about.

I'd start a business on this premise right away. I buy items in exchange for material objects. You can also buy them back from me. I'll have a currency set up in 2 weeks.

Have you ever heard the term "Figures don't lie, but liars figure?" Those are often anonymous online polls. Not sure how accurately you can rely on that.

Ah, alright. My series focuses more on the human psychology aspect of an apocalypse then the actual apocalypse.

Excellent video that I recommend.

Rule of Three by Eric Walters. All three books have been published. Each around 400 pages. First one follows the initial creation of the city state. The second one follows an internal coup attempt against the city states rulers. The third one follows a war breaking out between the city state and a rouge army. https://www.amazon.com/Rule-Three-Eric-Walters/dp/0374355029

Rule of Thr3e trilogy is an amazing series. The power in the entire world goes out, and you get to follow the main characters as they try to rebuild society against rogue militaries, starvation, disease, and internal revolutions.

https://totalelement.com/products/1-2-inch-neodymium-rare-earth-sphere-magnets-n48-4-pack?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&adpos=1o1&scid=scplpM12SPHEREN48-4PK&sc_intid=M12SPHEREN48-4PK&gclid=CjwKCAiAtorUBRBnEiwAfcp_Y5ki8KItlNbedvnMsWI37TYDpsNIAjxz-mWfSJ4HmqTO48ZlvSO-1RoCCnkQAvD_BwE Not saying you should buy them, but those are round magnets.

Haha, very true. As I said, it's not magic, just complicated.

Yeah. You said you asked for clarity on what time frame was being referenced. I pointed out the technically a time frame didn't matter.

Fair enough. I did a google search and the first page numbers were all far below 1 million so I assumed you had confused numbers. But it doesn't matter what you qualify as "that past" as long as it's in the past at some point, and then backwards in time from there. I mean, assuming what other people mean by something can go wrong sometimes. However, with something like "that past," I feel as though it's safe to assume he means the past. As in the times before now. If you don't include anything after 1960, his statement that violent deaths are decreasing is true.(Also, I'm talking per 100,000. Because the population change has been massive over the past few centuries) If you don't include anything after 1900, his statement is still true. If you don't include anything after 1700s, his statement is still true. If you don't include anything after 1000 A.D., his statement is still true. If you don't include anything after 100 B.C, his statement is still true. Since 100 B.C. was well over two thousand years ago, I'm fairly certain it's safe to assume by the past that he meant anything in the past. Just my non-educated opinion though, I think it's safe to assume by "the past" he meant the past in general. So I'm not sure why you need to know which period he qualifies as the past. This graph shows a decline in war deaths per 100,000 people all the way back to 1400. We've been on an upward climb for the past few years, yet we're still well below every other historical low. Even in a 10 year high. And if you start at world war 2 until now: We're still FAR below the average. Hell, even the Vietnam war pales in comparison to much of world history.