Access Denied

You do not have permissions to access this page.

Latest Posts Comments Articles
    • Justice in the Force (Last post by den385)
    • The only answer I got is that Force is not my wishful thinking. But it makes so much sense that I feel better. Thank you, brothers)
    • Guns in America (Last post by Adder)
    • I guess the real issue isn't about access to weapons, especially in the US where they are everywhere already, but what degree of capability to inflict damage can a legal weapon have ie you cannot own a rocket launcher. Access to weapon's have and need a hard limit, so it should be about where that limit is most effective. Which means for defence purposes, then the limit would seem to be equivalent or higher then the threat. I know that view is slightly one dimensional, such that population of handgun wielding innocents against one criminal with an M4 would not be a good move for the sane criminal. One thing to consider is that limit for legal ownership is likely not going to increase, yet criminals will be able to continue to increase their weapon's lethality. So IMO the self defence from crime, and right to revolt are not really strong arguments... as no modern military is going to be stopped by numbers of citizens armed with rifles, carbines, shotguns and handguns. A possible idea would seem to be in affordable armour and protection measures but tighter building access controls and armoring levels in vehicles and structures help drive an increase in criminals capabilities to counter the increase protection measures. I don't have an answer for the US, as its too saturated, but I'm happy with Australia's approach despite being a gun nut myself. If anyone has a gun here where they shouldn't, then they get treated like a serious threat by Police no matter their actual intention - which does reduce the number of guns on the street. Unfortunately illegal guns are still easy to get here since we have a widespread organised crime problem, but I think it would be a lot worse if we did not have the law changes back in `96. I personally saw about 3 at social events before 96 with young adults, but haven't seen one since. I think there are other measures to protect oneself then pretending to be able to employ one effectively when needed, as the situation where one can do so would probably also be a situation which could be managed by other means - its the situation where other options for protection break down which also likely mean one is less able to use a gun effectively.... which means giving another criminal another weapon at the end of the day - unless they are actually there deliberately to kill you, like your being hunted or something, then it would be sleeping with one eye open and one hand of the weapon no doubt!! Of course my imagination is good enough to understand that is not a rule, and familiarity with ones premises against even multiple attackers in the dark would offer some advantage to the home owner, but I cannot help but think the criminal is probably going to be less rational, more resourced, not alone and probably ice'd to the hilt which means even getting the first hit/s might not be enough, but also not probably there to kill you but rather rob you and if its a choice between letting them ransack the house while you duck out the back, or risk confronting them in a gun fight, I'd take the former each time.
    • Workout Check-In Thread (Last post by MadHatter)
    • Hey all I wish to start working out because I need to drop the weight. My problem is that getting started for me. Its just hard to motivate myself because I dont really like working out and lack transportation most days. Does anyone have advice or work out plans that work from home mostly? Does anyone have advice on getting yourself started despite not really liking the idea.
    • Well done, feminism. Now men are afraid to help wo... (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • i dont want to be or seem rude or hostile i have to say that there is a huge disconnect between the lives and thoughts of real actual living men and the STEREOTYPES of what and how men think and act that are being presented in this thread
    • On War & Religion (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • Quote: Quote: Also, the assertion that any life has inherent value is false by necessity, since "inherent value" is already something internally inconsistent. Value is an outcome of putting value upon things. It cannot be inherent by definition. Nor does a majority of largely popular religions in our day, and by that I mean religions with any global influence of note, teach that life has inherent value. The value of life they teach is often only as far reaching as the religion's tribe and doesn't extend even as far as to all mankind, and it is also, in most cases, contingent upon either ourselves, a cosmic impersonal justice and morality system, or a countable set of deities. Value and inherency are two incompatible things. 1- i think i elaborated on this in my response but i wanted to add - did you really not understand the basic point i was expressing? i mean, i do respect that it is important to be as precise with our language as possible, but if we are communicating in a friendly and mutually uplifting way, do you really have to pick every damn thing apart to nth degree? its very frustrating discussing topics with you because we get sidetracked on minutia for no better reason than that you find an opportunity to be critical and wont let it pass but maybe that is only my impression and not your intent? 2 - EVERY religion teaches that there is a higher order of existence and that we are a part of that order - that we have a place and a purpose within it - THIS IS OUR VALUE and this is what religion does ---- so you arent going to explain why it is wrong to burn down villages? and your response to that is "NO YOU DO IT!" ? well i think i will say that numerous religion systems have explained this far better than i could do what is this time you speak of "long before religion existed"? i am talking about RELIGION - the phenomena of religion itself and not just some particular religion, such as taoism or jediism im not sure that we can speak of a time "before religion came along" ? my understanding is that the best of our modern thinking has determined that religion existed as far back as human beings can be said to be HUMAN BEINGS in the modern sense
    • Your Inner Council: What is it and how to develop ... (Last post by Loudzoo)
    • This is a great thread - and I like your list! Here are my current 7, in no particular order: George Fox - for original thought and steadfastness in the face of oppression Obi Wan Kenobi - just because . . . Bjorn Lomborg - for effective environmentalism, no matter how unfashionable ( Lao Tzu - for wisdom Thomas Young - the definitive polymath provides inspiration that everything is interesting Valentino Rossi - for bravery, technical acumen, persistence and sense of humour Edgar Mitchell - for pursuing his interests and beliefs in the face of opposition (
    • SW Force Awakens books (Last post by Br. John)
    • I have this one. Aftermath: Star Wars: Journey to The Force Awakens It starts immediately with the end of Return of the Jedi but only covers a short time period - not near the thirty years that have passed. I understand that time period (between VI and VII) will be filled in with more books. There's going to be a single episode comic that tells why C3PO Spoiler: has one red arm now. [attachment]
    • Rants far and wide (Last post by Connor L.)
    • I'm working so hard with so little result... This is slow. Slow is a good teacher, though... I must remember that.
    • From time to time a poem (Last post by elizabeth)
    • If you cut enough times with words do you imagine I will feel your pain? Will the guilt for being a cause of your turmoil close the distance between us? Will it change how I feel? Give me a new perspective? No. It raises defenses and rages, burns out all that was ever there. It furthers the distance until I no longer see. Clouds the reality Destroy everything and when its spent nothing has changed. Except.. Except I no longer wish to try, I have no empathy because, my love Words are hollow and meaningless and like the weapons you choose to wield them as, Sadness and love are passing storms and they destroy not build.
    • UN says Afghan hospital bombing may be war crime (Last post by Avalonslight)
    • One article I read suggested that the location in question was being used by the Taliban as a sort of staging ground / home base / etc for the region, with it being Afghani officials being the ones to say that. [ source ] So let's say that the airstrikes were based on that information. It wouldn't be the first time the Taliban has used an otherwise normally "don't strike" building as a base of operations. They've used mosques and other religious buildings, schools, hospitals, etc in the past. They'll very likely use such "no strike list" buildings in the future. What I want to know is if this is a war crime, then why isn't someone investigating the Russian military for their sudden escalation and airstrikes against Syrian land targets? Is it because they're reportedly just against terrorist training camps? Because if that's the case, then people should be aware that there are just as many civilian and non-combatant individuals in those locations as there were in that Afghani hospital, in the form of hostages, sex slaves, women, children, infants, and the elderly.... What if ISIS were using a hospital as a base, and then Russia conducted an airstrike against that hospital? Would there be the same outrage? Collateral damage, which is the term you're looking for here, happens in every conflict. Innocents are killed; buildings are struck that shouldn't have been struck. And it sucks! The problem is, whatever justification the US military used to decide that an airstrike was the best way to deal with the reported threat, will very likely remain classified past any investigation the Pentagon or UN or NATO or whatever organization you want to name happens to conduct. What information did US officials use? Afghani intelligence? Our own boots on the ground? Local reports? Satellite imagery? What if the information regarding the Taliban being there was wrong? What if it was right? When does the military have the obligation to stand back and allow known militant groups to use what is supposed to a safe haven as a base of operations for spreading their terror and discord? When should they step in? How should they step in? Should they have sent a special forces team in instead of dropping a bomb? Should they have tried to draw these supposed militants out onto the streets? Or should they have ignored it and just let things go as they were supposedly going? When do you decide the pros outweigh the cons? Because quite frankly, I'm not certain anyone is ever going to be able to fully, ethically/morally decide "yes it's ok to strike this location" or "no it's not ok to strike this location", in any form... be it on the ground or from the air. Because there's always going to be some kind of civilian casualty... And to clarify, I am neither condoning nor condemning the actions that were taken... Because honestly, I don't have the intel to understand the reasoning behind it. I'm just presenting a bare basic example of the many levels of consideration that had to be made in order for a strike to even be ordered in the first place.

There are 922 visitors, 3 guests and 28 members online (none in chat): Akkarin, Br. John, Sarus, Grom Fett, steamboat28, Jestor, ren, Adder, Gisteron, isisinabi, Alexandre Orion, Rosalyn J, Kamizu, Edan, Cristris_Jons, SeventhSL, den385, Loudzoo, Plasmawiz, Tellahane, Corsair Gorscue, Tymmy, obiwankenokie, Mael, Vera Gman, Benitus, MadHatter, Raven Crest.

Follow Us