skillzdadirecta

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

There is no way in hell an effectively "pure" streaming device will work with the American broadband market.

How well does Playstation Now work? I'll be getting the more traditional version of the console myself.

8 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

Did you own the Action Max system?

Never had that either... did have a Vetrex though.

Karate Champ was the first game I remember seeing to use dual sticks.

Uko Kwais of The Raid is the obvious choice to star... but seriously this movie has been remade dozens of times already in everything but name. They're really just capitalizing off of the title. Casting is gonna be everything and I wouldn't be surprised if Keanu Reeves plays the John Saxon part. Put Chadwick Boseman in the Jim Kelly part and boom... you're done. Cast either Jacky Chan or Donny Yen as Mr. Han (Jet Li would be good too if he's healthy) and David Batista as Bolo.

Enjoy the ride. Great series.

When my grandfather bought my aunts and uncles an Odyssey then an Atari 2600. I remember playing Pong and Combat for hours. Plus playing games in local Pizza shops until I was old enough to go to arcades on my own. There was one arcade in a very busy,  bad area of my city and my mom always told me to stay out of there because she was pretty sure it was a drug front (it was) but I hung out there from Jr high through college any way despite getting robbed there once when I was 13 and getting into several real fights over fighting games lol. That arcade always got the latest games and I was sad to see it close down.

I've owned pretty much every home console at some point except for the 3

3D0, Lynx, and the more recent Nintendo consoles after the gamecube.

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

 

Absolute hogwash. 

Agreed.

On 7/23/2018 at 5:07 PM, SFLUFAN said:

Actually, our position is more accurately described as "the right to defend one's self using means that contain a reasonable expectation of lethality."

I actually meant to fully articulate that, my bad. But my point remains the same, if you are defending yourself from an attacker and he dies and the self defense claim is valid, you should be allowed to do so. The problem comes from gun toting cowards putting themselves on positions where they are the antagonists but are able to hide behind defending themselves.  See this situation and The Trayvon Martin thing as perfect examples. Bottom line is there are too many guns in the hands of folks that shouldn't have them. But just because that is the case, saying a citizen absolutely does not have the right to defend themselves, potentially with lethal force, is going waaay too far in the other direction. Also it goes against basic human nature.

3 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Everyone would prefer to drive a car (or at least the majority), but that is bad for society, and it would be better if everyone took the bus or train. There are many other examples where the good of the collective is contrary to the wants or good of the individual.

What? But no one is saying that the individual cannot OWN a car and that right is only reserved for members of the state... is that what you're arguing here? Because that's what they are arguing except replace car with " the right to defend one's self ".

I value the collective good, but it cannot come at the explicit expense of the individual.  Humans just dont work that way... we're not fucking ants.

4 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

It largely comes down as to whether you value the "individual" or the "collective".

Those things don't have to be at odds... the collective is made up of individuals.

Just now, Captain Pickle said:

Im just airing my frustration that you are right that we should have some sort of edumucated people determine through rational thought whether or not someone was justified in murdering someone but this very thread suggests that we cant.  Guy backs up... cops be like...yeah but he could be just prepping for the psycho crusher

 

I hear you... those street fighter special moves can be lethal though.

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

My argument against the "right" of lethal self-defense in deference to the State's monopoly on violence isn't as much a "progressive" argument as it is a "fascist" one.  It's a argument based on the "insignificance" of the individual relative to that of the State.

Conservatives and libertarians often paint Liberals and fascists with the same brush.

1 minute ago, Captain Pickle said:

because your lawmen (lawpeople???) have shown time and time again that they Jesus holy Christ can't do that.

 

See this thread as example

So... rather than try and fix it just say that only those same lawmen have the right to kill for whatever reason but citizens dont have the right to lethal force in self defense situations? At all??? That makes sense to you guys?

2 minutes ago, misfit410 said:

There are also pictures of her in full minstrel show blackface.

if someone wanted to destroy here the material is there, hopefully we get to a breaking point where we stop destroying people over jokes soon.

Except people know all this stuff about her already so unless there's new stuff, she's probably fine. And again, blackface and pedophilia are two entirely different things.

This is where progressives lose the argument. Saying that there should be absolutely no right to lethal self defense defies not only logic, it defies billions of years of evolution. Again why are we behaving as if we have no ability to adjudicate situations on a case by case basis and apply reasonable levels of justice. Jesus Christ...

36 minutes ago, Dodger said:

I probably would never carry a gun on me ever, but if I felt I needed to pull the gun on you I'd do that and wait to see to see if you backed down. If you still continued to come after then I'd shoot.

 

 

This guy didn't do that... the husband was backing away and he still shot him. The threat had ended yet they said lethal force was still appropriate.

Comedians really only have one rule... be fucking funny. This wasn't.

1 minute ago, Dodger said:

Real life isn't UFC where you are theoretically equally matched in weight and skill class. Like on the surface, I'm a big dude. 6' and 300 pounds. But I'm also extremely out of shape and I've never been in a real fight in my entire life. If you attack me, I'm doing whatever I can to get you to stop. I'd rather be alive and on trial then dead because I let some guy punch me in the right spot and kill me because I wanted to be reasonable about stopping the attack.

So if you got into a fist fight on the street your FIRST option is to shoot someone? Not every brawl or altercation on the street is a life and death affair for Christ's sake

1 minute ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

Reading the last several posts I'm actually a bit conflicted. I think it's kind of unfair to ask people to make these kinds of calculations in situations where their fight/flight response is going crazy. But I also think there are clear situations (like this specific story) where somebody else's reaction was way overboard. If a guy shoves me I'm probably not going to shoot him (if I carried a gun). If a guy is punching the shit out of me yeah I might pull a knife, but not with the intention to kill or even wound (if I carried a knife), but just as a visual warning that if he continues he will escalate the situation now that he knows what I'm carrying.

It's unfair to ask people to make these split second calculations... but perfectly reasonable to give these folks the option to use lethal force?

Just now, Scott said:

What did the employee do wrong? Stick up for himself while on the clock?

He dared follow company policy and was abused racially because of.

State's Rights.

1 minute ago, Brick said:

 

Well said. People need to stop using South Park as some sort of guidance. 

Dear God yes.

46 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Oh, okay. 

45 minutes ago, johnny said:

What if they jam the pool cue up your ass 

Then you are literally FUCKED.

Just now, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

Some very fine people dug up an old joke on twitter. 

What was the joke?

7 minutes ago, brucoe said:

My point is that people make mistakes in their lives. This is a country where we allow ex-felons to be elected for office and constantly give really bad people a second, third and fourth chance. Why is Twitter suddenly the end all of someone's career and life? Again, if it's consistent behavior, I'm fine with backlash. But right now we have Internet trolls combing through EVERYTHING someone they disagree with has said on Twitter since its inception. To me, that's going a bit too far to seek "justice".

And my point is don't put yourself in that position in the first place... these are unforced errors.  Folks are posting dumb shit PUBLICLY for some reason and then act surprised when they get held to account for it. YOU did this shit... no one forced you to... for all the attention whores on Twitter, there are plenty of people who use these platforms responsibly... there are also plenty of people who don't use them at all... so yes, it's fucked up that trolls can dig through your digital history in order to use things you may have said against you, what's even more fucked up is that YOU gave them the ammunition to use against you in the first place. It's not like he was taken out of context or it was a one off... he did it. He's gotta wear that and companies should absolutely not give a pass to folks Twitter accounts. Not at all.

And where do felons get second,  third and fourth chances in this country? For the most part if you're a felon and you're not rich and famous, you're fucked.