I wouldn't be mad because I'd understand that a father is going to be protective of his girl, because he knows what 'bad' boys are like. It suggests to me that he feels things are moving too fast for her and he does not know you well enough to trust you. He's only watching out for her and probably would feel more comforted if you were able to get to know the family more and well, not be a stranger. Also, if you show you are her friend as well as her boyfriend, that would be a good idea. She knows that being angry with her father over such an issue will only make things harder, so she's doing the more mature thing instead, knowing that with time, he will come to trust you if you are a good person that genuinely cares for her. Now, you've got to do your part. You say she tells you she loves you and such, so why would you wish her to get angry at someone else she loves who has been there not for 8 months but for her life? The last thing you want to do if you care about this girl is to come between her and her dad, or to tell her how she should feel. That may be a reason the father would get angry too. She disagrees with him, but she also understands where he's coming from. I'd be grateful she has a parent who gives a care about it too. It's normal to feel agitation in this way, but the best thing for you to do is let the emotions pass and actually show you care instead of putting her in a worse position.
Hey Famous. sup?
That's what you get for stealing me smarts. Now I'm going to go to work and hit people with it.
The blue one. The brown one scares me.
*steals your towel* Now your greatest asset belongs to me.
Ghost Rider wasn't bad to me. It just wasn't as good as it could have been. They should have put more fighting in it but I guess the special effects costed too much or something. I could forgive that though for the most part as it had some things in it that were alright and it also in its way ended up having all 3 of the main Ghost Riders in it. I did hope for more too but the film just didn't get the budget it should have. As for this movie, it seems to focus on Thor's origins, in the comic books anyway with Donald Blake. However, if they actually go to Asgard and stuff, I ponder if it's also going to have a lot of special effects that will make it cut corners. I hope not though. They seem to have been putting a lot into the other Avenger member movies. The only Avenger movie I really am not interested in would be Ant Man. Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne were always kind of the meh boring Avengers compared to others.
I agree that forbidding the death penalty entirely is foolish. However, again, not for the reasons you do. There seem to be more innocent people that die from the death penalty than serial pathological criminals that get out of prison by means of escape. That is my point. Put the worst criminals in secure areas where they cannot harm others or themselves. If they can and do harm each other or guards etc, this is when I would propose the death penalty be used as incarceration is not enough for these people and they continue to carry on crimes. Otherwise, I see no reason to put the people on death row, unless again, there is another reason they are a danger to society and they have a likely chance of getting out instead of being a lifer. I don't think by the acts judicially that protect a hearing and jurors, that anyone but judge or a panel of judges should make such a call. Other people simply are not privy to the trial, and even if they are, they do not tend to understand things or are too emotional or emotionless concerning the welfare of another person's life. In other words, we don't let armchair warriors dictate moves in football; we shouldn't allow them to do it for court hearings that are so serious either. Because some people cannot fit into society but it does not mean they deserve nothing. Some people without the distraction of society and the things that enraged or frustrated them, actually do calm down and if they are going to be there a while or for life, why not give them some things to do? I'd say a good way to promote it would be that the criminals do some labor for the rights to extracurricular materials and such. Of course, still, they should have no contact with the outside world save for visitors. Serious criminals do not tend to escape from prison that often. You are right. They can be a threat if that happens. However, with reform to detail who is going to be a lifer or on death row, and these people are not around those who get 'outdoor' privileges etc, this is highly likely to happen even less than it does now. Just as the ones against capital punishment use the excuse of 'innocents pay for crimes with loss of life that can never be returned', those who support capital punishment keep bringing up that the criminals 'deserve' to die and that they are a danger. I consider this kind of a paranoia considering prison breaks of serious criminals does not happen that often. For those that -are- a serious threat and -could- escape or do brutality etc in prison, these are the people in particular that the death penalty may have to be considered for. For those who -can be held-, I don't see what the issue is here that keeps being brought up. It's irrelevant so the only standing point that in the end anyone has is that those who support the death penalty want the person dead. Have you ever thought about what made the criminal decide to do what he or she did? The criminal's background? Also, their mental condition? There are a lot of cruel people out there who do things to others and it only gets found out after someone wigs out about it because those people know how to avoid being found out. You cannot be privy to every case that goes on involving those who do extremely violent crimes. Yes, the person has earned the right to be out of society for life for the travesties he or she has caused but again, with the death penalty -someone- is doing the killing. Whether it's all nice and neat or its with a shot to the head, the law shouldn't be killing those who are actually detained and -can- by all purposes, be held without a danger to others. Why should criminals -not- get meals a day? TV, I agree that they probably don't need, but what's wrong with books or things that do not attach the person to the outside world to plan things such as breaking out of prison? Again, this is a revenge point and that is not what the law is about. The death sentence is a crock of crap, costs more than just letting someone be in prison for life, and again, why is the law killing an apprehended criminal that can do no more harm to anyone? As I said before, if that criminal shows hostility and is a danger to those around in incarceration, -that- is when the death penalty should be done. Less questions and times with lawyers bouncing things around would also happen because one could get a binding law that declares that a death penalty could be enacted should said prisoners attempt escape, violent acts, etc. Then it is on the criminal's behavior to either do as he or she should or he/she is done. My point is this. Why are people in jail for stupid crap like possession of drugs, when we should actually be holding criminals instead like child molesters, rapists etc? The space for -other- criminals should be exactly for the criminals we do not want in the streets because rehabilitation will fail. It shouldn't be for those who are actually in there for stupid stuff. Those people can be held elsewhere and get out sooner with forced rehabilitation. No matter what happens, whether the death penalty remains or not, the prisons -must- sooner or later be reformed. With rehabilitation services for lesser criminals, there would actually be more jobs, assistance and ways of dealing with addiction, anger management and other minor issues that can dramatically straighten up someone's life. Prison for lifers would not cost anymore than it does because in the end, the costs of the death penalty are very high anyway. You don't have to build new facilities. I fail to see how that would even come into play. If anything, you'd need less space if prisons were reformed right and we didn't hold people for possession of drugs (not selling necessarily) or for prostitution (which is a deal between two people anyway) and stuff that in the end is just lame to me. Agreed.
At the very beginning, the guy sounds like a girl when he was singing soft but after that he sounds like a guy to me. He looked more like a girl than sounded like one >.> The song was interesting though.
I hope this movie goes in the way of Iron Man, Ghost Rider (though I felt the fight scenes were too rushed) and the second Hulk movie because they were really great.. and not in the way of Daredevil or Spiderman 3 and X-Men 3 because they were awful to me. If it does go well, I will be very happy as Thor was one of my favorite Marvel characters, growing up. I haven't really read any comics in a while but I've really enjoyed some of the films.
I loved that show. It made me laugh a lot. Wish it had not ended since it was more funny to me than a lot of the stuff out now.
Physical violence - I'd say as others have said, it hurts at the time but mostly you can heal from it. You may wear scars or have some permanent disfiguration to remind you of it, which sucks and means it's going to always be recalled probably more vividly than otherwise. Mental violence - Words hurt until you learn to stop caring so much what others think when they are being idiots. The only people in the end who should be able to affect others with words are those who matter most, which doesn't calculate in the dorks from school or work that are just associates you have to hang around. However, it takes time to figure this out and even as adults, people can remember back when they were in school and how much some people made it really difficult to want to even be there. To me, since I've had often both at the same time, from relatives and from some bullies, I can say the coupled effect is worst. Being beaten on while being told you are a useless scum of the earth and the person wishes you were dead, so later you have scars both physical and mental.. much worse than either mental or physical violence on their own. Since the worst pains for me from the past come from having both done at the same time, it's hard for me to judge whether physical violence or mental violence is worse, but I suppose it would depend on -how- violent each was. I suppose in the end though, the mental violence tends to stick with people more as most people are social and being mistreated so as to not be part of the group, feel like crap etc, lingers and can leave people feeling very insignificant or furious. Those who are beaten to the point of having permanent injuries and scars etc, have to live with that the rest of their lives but if it was not done constantly to them, they have a better chance of recovery with more pleasant mental happenings going on around them. However.. again, most of the time people get beaten up and abused physically, there is normally some form of mental abuse tied to it. Unless it's some random beating, I fail to see how it's not going to be that way.
Pathological people cannot be reformed but they also do not just merit other people being pathological and conducting their deaths. It -is- an act of revenge and also deciding pathologically that they have no right to exist because they are taking up space and people want some cowboy sense of justice. This is not progress. This is stepping backwards. Why would I lock them up for life rather than executing them? Because if they can be held safely behind bars, maybe they can contribute something to life that they could not when dead. Some of these people are very smart and if they do not have people to kill or things to plot, they may do something more. Also pathological criminals can be studied psychologically and perhaps it will assist us in figuring out how people grow to be this way. The state of mind seems alien to those with a conscience but already tests have shown quite a few interesting details and we have learned signs of pathological behavior, as well as more on schizophrenia and other brain conditions, as well as studies on molesters, child molesters and rapists that have formed some of the top serial killers and rapists, and we are learning more on what makes someone turn into a spree killer, etc. What is learned could prevent crimes of this magnitude and also help people recognize the behavior in children even so that they can possibly be helped early. Not all pathological people are criminals. Not all criminals are pathological. There are many pathological people out amongst society that are fine. Telling the difference could be key to seeing if there is at all any chance these people can ever be helped etc. It eases people's minds because the killer can't get them anymore and they can be at peace? It also means that the people know the ******* got what was coming to him. In the end, it is over revenge and to close the book on that criminal's life. If the person was to be in prison for life with no chance ever of parole, why would it matter to those who aren't out for revenge and just want to ensure the person never leaves prison alive? People go to watch executions. If it wasn't for revenge and to wait to hear that criminal say something of remorse to that family etc, it wouldn't be done. I fail to see how capital punishment is a good idea in the future. It's a failed idea that just makes the justice stood for as bloody as the criminals it catches. The only reason that capital punishment should be used is for extreme circumstances where holding a person in prison safely is not an option. Otherwise the justice system becomes as barbaric and awful as the criminals. If you can say pathological criminals -deserve- death, then it is biased. Judges that can say that are not impartial. They are taking the life of a person who is helpless and deciding to have the person killed. The person cannot do -anything- to anyone if he or she is locked up. This is exactly why there is such a rule regarding 'excessive force' that civilians and officers of the law must follow. Judges should also be expected to follow this law and only the very worst, most dangerous criminals that will harm others regardless of being in prison, should get. Anyone else and yes, I cannot see it as anything but revenge. Again, what is the difference between having a full life sentence with no chance of parole versus the death penalty if it is not for revenge and assuming that the person is getting what he deserved? I agree that making an island for prisoners would fail. That's been attempted enough and well, it would just backfire and be lame. Also, the world is running out of continents to send their ruffians and there's a difference with excommunicating lesser criminals versus serial killers and rapists etc. It's also more of a waste of money to force people to work out there and be hired to shoot anyone that tries to leave, and if people escaped it would just be lame to cope with. In the end, I'd propose instead something like Fort Leavenworth for civilians. It works to hold the military's worst criminals, so I don't see why a civvy version couldn't be made for those who are never leaving prison. It also gets these particular people who would go to death row out of the way solidly from society and yet they still have somewhere to sleep, bathe, etc and be monitored for life. Having one place for them all or a few in each country to divide them up, would probably also in the end save money and less 'accidents' would happen in other prisons. I would never put the vote to people on the streets. The reason we have juries in the first place and a judge that ignore the media is because the media plays up things and tilts them one way or the other and it can affect judgment of the person on trial. This would defy the whole purpose of the law and the person would not get a fair trial. You will never discourage a pathological person from breaking the law. No way, no how, by fear. Just because the person can no longer fit in society does not mean they deserve to live absolutely pathetically. I do not think they should live better than the 'poor class' of society, but they aren't ever going anywhere so they should not live without some things so as to not just let them live out in complete misery. Being isolated from others is a big misery on its own and that's what they've earned. The only things I don't think they should ever get are computers or ways to go online in any form or fashion to communicate with the outside world, which for some reason in some countries is permitted. Books and other things, as long as they are safe with them, I don't see the problem. After all, just because they are lifers doesn't mean they should be denied everything. People are still human. It will never be useful in capable hands because none of us can be like the grim reaper and judge first off, if someone is absolutely guilty and second off, if they can ever be redeemable. We do not have the ability to look in someone's mind. Therefore the law will always be bound to make mistakes. Until such a time as we are able to mentally scan someone and know there is no chance the person will ever change and the person is unfit for living because he/she is a danger to all around him or her, I'm sorry but the death penalty is not progress. It's stepping back and still will always be a method that people who want revenge and think that -fear- works to prevent criminals from doing what they will, will try to employ. They are thinking more about themselves and what they want to see rather than the giant picture out there. The law should not have to become killers to get rid of killers that can no longer kill. It makes no sense at all. If that is the case, then what's so wrong with vigilantism, police brutality, and people taking the law into their own hands? Why should the law placate to people who just want revenge instead of realizing if a criminal is gone for life, the person is -never leaving prison-? If anything, progress to me would mean we are able to study those who can never leave prison and as said earlier, learn what it is that makes these people become what they are so that we can learn to isolate these people sooner and stop crimes earlier. It also means we could get help to children going down the path early on. Many criminals have quite crappy pasts involving bad parenting, mental conditions and bullying etc. They become angry and take it out on animals often enough, then other people. There are habits we all ready know to watch for and we can learn more to help lower crime. Those who can never adjust, if they are out of society, they are gone. So again, how is the death penalty not outdated? What can it offer except to get rid of criminals by allowing other people to bloody their hands that should not be doing so as they are representatives of the law? Point out to me here how it is superior when you lay on other people the responsibility of killing someone that is already apprehended and can do jack crap to anyone else again.
Debating on religion for some people is a way to analyze things and share ideas, compare and well, to learn more. It isn't for everyone. There are many people out there who would rather not debate over religion or any various other topics considered taboo to discuss. For some people, it's because they are just sick of people talking about it. For others, it's because they feel it's just wrong to do. You can always say you aren't into that sort of thing and avoid discussing it with others, unless people are being particularly ornery which generally you can say f-u and they get the hint. xD For someone who doesn't care to discuss religion, in the end, around here, don't stress with reading the topics. There are other debates that go on. I can see how debates on it get rather old at times, whether on a forum or out dealing with people day to day. Just some others are more inquisitive and on the topic that doesn't interest you, so to them, it is not pointless.
Reformation of the prison system and rehabilitation offered for many criminals would be better as an option than just holding some in there that don't have to be there for long. Some criminals simply are there because of being misled, doing some stupid deeds they outgrow and stealing or possession of drugs. These people are not really needing to be there for life and some rehabilitation and learning to adapt can help them. Backgrounds for people differ. To say that this is not true and call others naive.. it makes you instead seem to be the naive one. However, as I said above, there are pathological criminals that can and will play on the kindness of people who think 'anyone' can reform. These people get out and repeat offenses, to include molestation, murder and rape. It will not matter what you do for rehabilitation, these people are not going to change and should -never- be let out of prison. It should just be accepted that some people are not capable of existing in society well and that you are doing the person in prison as much of a favor as you are doing others by leaving that person there. This, I take it, is what you mean by calling others naive who think a reformation of prisons would cure everything. I do think at least most people here, know though, that there is no way to get some people to change. As for your last statement, death is death. As long as it is not torturous, then I suppose that's the method to go with. There have been studies that suggest lethal injection, as costly and 'neat' as it is, happens to be making the victims suffer and they cannot move or protest it before they die. I can tell you one thing. If I was going to be up for the death penalty, I'd by far rather just be taken out to a pole and shot. To me, that is more humane and less costly, and over quicker. Sure, there's blood, but death -is- death and a person who got killed isn't going to worry about the mess. The living are. The only people I think the death penalty should be ever used on are those that prove they cannot be held in safety in prison. This would also include someone like a war time leader, such as Osama Bin Laden. Holding such a person would prove trying and others may even try to assassinate or liberate the person, and some people can be bought off too. It's better, regardless of the 'martyrdom' situation, to kill a wartime leader because of the threat to those who would be doing their jobs to hold that person away. Prison was designed to hold harmful people out of society and if the people cannot be held in there right because they are a serious danger, prison is the last mortal step we can do. If death is the only way to ensure a seriously dangerous being does not escape, then that is the time to me to employ the death penalty. Which is why I now go back to reformation. With a better prison scheme set up, it can be easier determined who can be rehabilitated, who should be 'lifers' and who needs the death penalty. The death penalty used as a form of punishment in itself is useless but to give some cowboys and vengeful pricks and chicks a sense that they got their revenge. If it was not this way, families and victims etc would not be let to see the executions. Also, someone's hands are always bloody for killing another life that is basically defenseless. It's not the same as soldiers having to kill armed people. Either the people doing the deeds are pathological with a weird sense of 'honor' themselves or they have a funked up idea of what conscience is. These same people say it is fine that some innocent people have died wrongfully because others were evil criminals that got what was comin' to 'em and mistakes happen. It's simply inexcusable to me that all of those mistakes have happened and maybe that's a telltale sign that we should not be dealing out lethal justice unless it truly has to be dealt out. Justice is not about revenge.
With the way the death penalty works and the mistakes it brings about, I'd have to say no for most cases. I believe prison on a whole needs restructured and also certain attentions should be made to keep harmful elements out of the rest of society, but so far, no one has a good prison system that does what it should. Either countries are too harsh, too non-caring, or too easy going. There is just not a real system that actually benefits mankind out there, other than trying to keep the criminal element out of society, and that fails too. Prisons to me should be at basics, about reformation and rehabilitation of the people sent there, for the most part. The only people that should be simply 'held there' with no chance of getting out are those who simply cannot be helped to assimilate to life outside of prison walls. Some of these, which tend to roam rather freely I'd point out and it disturbs me, are those who molest/rape and those who murder. There are exceptions to those who have killed, especially those who did so out of self-defense or helping someone else, but for the most part, these people are most likely not going to change and so why they keep getting out of prison before those who had drug possession, I just don't get it. Only those who are notorious or get super attention drawn to them remain in prison and some get the death penalty. The death penalty in itself is cruel and barbaric. People are left alive for several months or even several years on death row, waiting. The cost to hold them and conduct the deaths is more expensive or the same amount as what you'd see if they were just left to prison for life. Also, some people are under the impressions that lethal injection is nice, and it is no better than just taking the person out to a pole and shooting them execution style. In the end, I'll also point out that some 'criminals' have died due to the death penalty, only to find out later, their pleas all along against having killed someone were true. You can't bring back someone from the dead who was innocent. Unless people know for absolute sure that a person did the crime, they should -never- be on death row. The only people I see fit for the death penalty are those who if they live will continue to bring misery, pain and are a threat to humanity in and out of prison. If the guards and other inmates are in danger from the person, and there is no way that person is going to stop with what he/she is doing, then I feel that's worthy of the death penalty because not only can the person not be integrated in society ever again; the person cannot be trusted to being able to be held safely in prison. For people who are pathological, sadistic etc and can be held, might as well keep them in for life and not let them go. They won't change. And my last gripe is that religious people should not be allowed to go in and say criminals have reformed because of Christianity or Islam. There are Buddhists who go and donate time to helping prisoners learn meditation and such but they aren't trying to get people out early because something saved them. They are actually helping rehabilitate criminals so that they can cope with issues that put the criminals there in the first place. No one should get out on a religious pass. So many of these people have gotten out and either gotten rich off televangelical schemes and shows of their reformation which is staged or went right back to jail later. The death penalty though, is not the counter to criminals who get out early to cause mayhem once again. The cure to that issue is a reformation of the prison system to pay attention to psychologically, the fact that a supreme high number of rapists, molesters and murderers are just likely to do the deeds again. Good behavior, topped with the fact our prisons are in a sorry state, holding too many prisoners for other lesser crimes instead of rehabilitating them and helping them find work and such (which is one of the reasons that a lot of crimes are done), is not a reason for criminals to be let go. A pathological person can easily play the system and be good and be seen as less of a threat. The reason.. because they do not care. I believe in most cases, the death penalty should not be used at all save for the criminals that are a supreme danger to the lives around them, and for how long the prisoners on death row are left alive anyway, the death penalty is truly a failed concept.
Yeah, I'd like to see a Riku-centered game because he does have his own secrets and things he has done that get left up to mystery. Because he's a more serious character, I also feel that there would be more depth in the game than sometimes with Sora and his side of things. In CoM it was like that and I found Riku's side of the story a bit more interesting and it was less repetitive.
[IMG] Take that!
Pretty much that is the answer. Riku and Sora often sparred on Destiny Islands and if you look at certain signs of the fight, he does similar actions to include when he 'loses' he shrugs, meaning he didn't take it as a bad thing. That is the same thing he did on Destiny Islands if you won him so it was the clue and why Sora thought it was Riku, other than the fact Riku had obtained Soul Eater in KH1 and Sora had seen him with the weapon. The Org member in the palace that Sora sees later was Xigbar. Riku, however, had arrived at the palace after running off from Sora, to warn the Emperor of the dragon attack that would come so that people were not outside and around for it. You can see in a cinematic sequence the cloaked Riku going in and getting through the Emperor's guard to speak to him. Later, the Emperor makes a comment to Sora that someone was rude to him but he did give him information on the attack coming. So Sora then once again believes it is Riku, but then confronts Xigbar so confusion commences again.
I would say that you did the right thing for the most part including getting the girl home and telling the parents, but I can say that you forgot one thing. I would have got the guy's identification for the parents as well so that if they wanted to press charges they could, and I probably would have just said the whole truth and not used fake names because they might want to press charges and you're both witnesses. I probably would have only beat him down enough to get that, or called the cops so they could get the info, but either way that's the only thing I would have done slightly different. You saved that girl a lot of humiliation and from rape, as did your friend and I'd say you deserve to be commended. Good job!
Polo shirts are evil. Especially the ones with crocodiles on them.
