marharth

I wish Beth would extend release dates more. 11.11.11 was a good marketing date, but they could of done so much more if they waited for early 2012. Honestly these things would really massively improve the game. Simply by making vampires and werewolves useful it is good. Not to mention it makes marriage something besides "hey, I cooked for you." This should all be released as a free mod imo since these things probably should of been in in the first place. It would be fine as a DLC. Now that I mention it, people are going to hate me for this but... What is Beth did something like this every few weeks? They could sell a DLC every month until their next game comes out.

No, I wasn't lucky, marharth. I was skilled. It is incredibly naive of you to say such a thing. Proves you didn't get the subtext of what I was saying, so no, you can't really say anything (that's true, in this case) because you have only opinions that aren't based on fact (unlike me, in this case). And you think it's beneficial to help criminals in order to save lives? Well, don't plan on running for office (except maybe here in Italy, which has a corruption level equal to central African nations). Anyone, anywhere, who rules has to know better than that. Once again: "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from man because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, will respect the less important arbitrary ones....and which, if strictly obeyed would put a end to personal liberty?....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than a armed man." - Thomas Jefferson oh, and if it wasn't obvious...the man is talking about self-defense. If you want to live in a bubble-wrapped world, where all the corners are rounded, and nobody tells you any bad words, where there are no challenges and you don't ever have to struggle, there are places like that, you know....the walls are padded, too, and they'll even give you a nice new jacket at the door. http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/laugh.gif Personal experience does not equal fact. Last time I checked it is not a very good idea to let kids play with guns, but okay. Also helping criminals is only popular if the criminals are rich. I could easily get elected if I phrased it right :whistling: Seriously though you need to decide which is more important, trying shoot someone who is pointing a gun in your face, or letting him rob you and not risk your life. Everyone wants to be a hero, but half of the time you are going to get shot by a nervous criminal by doing so. Strange that you would say that in the last paragraph, because unlike you I am aware that guns are used for destruction and death. The world is not a pretty place and having more tools of destruction and death won't fix that problem. However if you really think everyone is smart enough and well trained enough to use a gun properly, that jacket might fit you a bit better.

Are you referring to another shooting? The one I am talking about ended up the shooter killing himself. Either way the police killed him. Not a citizen. You are simply incorrect in saying that if we had strict gun laws like in Norway the shooter would have made it there. The police would have been called, and HE WOULDN'T OF HAD THE GUN IN THE FIRST PLACE... The majority of people are rational, but we have a rather large chunk in this country that is not. Rationality isn't even a factor really. People do really stupid things when they are extremely mad. Anger makes you irrational.

I've been to a summer cap, it's where I shot my first gun. I know what I am talking about through experience. And since you weren't paying attention(funny how I am the one accused of ignoring something) I've already listed a real world situation where an armed citizen was able to stop one school shooting from becoming two school shootings. Guns in schools should not be outlawed outright. I wont argue for everyone having a gun at all times. But there needs to be some sort of system where teachers have the ability to at least apply for a permit to keep guns on them. I know, this scares people. Oh well. Would you rather be scared or dead? Once again, lives were saved at UT Austin and the Pearl middle school because of armed citizens. Once again, there hasn't even been 31k murders in the US in a single year period, let alone 31k murders with guns. So the claim that there are 31k deaths do to gun violence is just straight up false. I did not use statistics to make things disappear, I used cold hard facts. The fact that the number espoused is incorrect. They can't be cut up into little pieces, because once again, they don't exist. Did you count them yourself? I highly doubt that. 31k is a popular number espoused by the Brady Bunch. It includes homicides, suicides and accidents. And it's still wrong. The actual numbers are roughly; 9k homicides 550 accidents 18k suicides Suicides should not be lumped with the rest. They're not gun violence. They're acts of self destruction and are not affected by gun ownership. The only thing that changes is the method of suicide. If you want to count gun accidents, fine. But then one must also consider other types of accidents. A favorite of gun rights advocates is motor vehicle accidents. There are roughly 39k motor vehicle accidents per year in the US. There are roughly 550 gun accidents in the US each year. There are as many guns as, if not more than, cars in the US. So for the sake of discussion, let's all it a 1/1 ratio. This means that your car is 71 times more likely to accidentally kill someone than my gun. It has been estimated that around 2.5m people use guns in self defense every year. These numbers can hardly be verified. Thus my point was simply that I can pull a big number out of my ass as well. I don't know how many people use guns each year to defend themselves, but I know the number is a LOT higher than 25. The lowest estimates for gun use in self defense exceed 100k. I live in the real world. The difference is that I get my information from the CDC, and you seemingly get your information from the Brady Campaign. Way to twist what I said. I wasn't saying they're just like cues. I was saying that like the other hobbies, they have their place for different purposes. I collect some, I shoot some and some are for SD. I know exactly what I'd do, and I know from experience. I would keep my calm and handle matters as best I could, like a rational adult that doesn't turn into a murderer at the drop of a hat. Which does not happen. People don't just turn into homicidal maniacs because they have a gun. They have to have a predisposition to homicidal tendencies, and then it wont matter if they have a gun, a knife or a big rock. Basically, to go crazy like that, they have to be crazy in the first place. Most people are not rational adults. People kill without meaning to do so just because they have a gun. There is a entire difference in law between killing someone in a fit of rage, and killing someone with planning. Killing someone does not make you crazy. I also went to a summer camp that did not allow firearms. It seems to me that allowing firearms at a summer camp is a terrible idea. The shooter at UT Austin killed himself, no one else stopped him. The pearl shooting involved the assistant principle stopping him at his car after he already killed multiple people. Sure he stopped him from killing more people, but if he didn't have the gun in the first place no one would have died.

This is something I agree on to a certain extent. Not because of self defense however. You need to have methods to properly counter an abusive government. Law enforcement needs to also have a counter.

Okay, I think I've identified the problem here. You're living in a fantasy world. You're living in Kleck and Gertz's world, where 25 people turn into 2.5 million. You're living in Aurelius's world, where you can get rid of 31,224 individually hand-counted death certificates by cutting them up into a million pieces. Opens MB's big book of cheap shots....snickers with wry derision. FYI..have seen more violence than you ever will. Quite a few your posts here are cheap shots without counter arguments. I am also not sure why you said he took a cheap shot when you ended your post with "FYI..I have seen more violence than you ever will" like that helps your argument or something. Seeing violence has nothing to do with gun control, so you just took a cheap shot at him in the same post where you told him not to take cheap shots. You are not in the place to even mention cheap shots in one of your posts.

No, criminals never have problems getting guns. Gun control never stops criminals from having guns. Period. And the politic of bending over and pulling your pants down for criminals? This "let them do whatever they want" nonsense? That's just foolish, sheep behavior. You promote violence that way because the bad guys know then that they can get away with it even easier. If that was the correct path, then that's what police officers would do, too. But they don't, do they? Because the Just and Right thing to do is to stand up to the bad guys. "The more guns there are" is also wrong and misleading. The truth of it is, "the more people there are". I grew up around guns, had my first gun waiting for me before I was even born. I went out and played with a shotgun or a hunting rifle before I was a teenager. My uncle's house had guns over the door frames, etc. We would as often spend out time out in the countryside armed and shooting. There were, for a "normal" "city person's" mentality, guns everywhere. And you know what? NO accidents. Ever. So, if the formula was that simple, you would be right. More guns equals more deaths. But it's not guns. It never is. It's people that are the problem. It's always the people. I see so much arguing/debating, and it rarely goes to the heart of the matter. People want to draw lines, and they want to blame "things" because it's easy that way to pull the wool over your eyes. They want to cite numbers, as if that will tell the story of the young black kid raised in a concrete jungle which wouldn't even be comprehensible to your average suburbian emo, or the tales of madness that have wrapped around the mind of the guy who's getting in his car with a rifle ready to shoot him up some people, any people. Pointing fingers leaves you looking at the moon. As much as you might hate it, if helping criminals saves lives then that is what you should be doing. Same thing applies to negotiating with terrorists. Sometimes you have to do something you might think is bad to get a good result. It is not foolish to let a criminal rob you if you end up not risking your life. Money is replaceable, your life is not. You are right in saying it is people. The simple thing is that if people didn't have those guns it wouldn't be a problem. You need a person to pull the trigger, but why bother with that when you can get rid of the gun altogether? If you have a person who wants to shoot up a school, but doesn't have a easy access to a bunch of guns, they are going to be a lot more likely to rethink that. True, more people with certain views and attitudes equals more deaths. But if you have more of these people with guns, its going to be a larger problem. Also you are rather lucky that you didn't get yourself killed if you played with a firearm as a kid. Not something you should be advocating, I can say that much. Are you going to tell me is it easier to get a gun in a country like Norway, the it is in the US? Really? Care to explain that?

So if I remember correctly, one of the people in the college cast a spell on you and its supposed to change your skin to green or something. Why does this quest even exist if you are playing as a Argoinian? My skin(scale) color didn't change at all. I am going to assume that is because I was already that color, or is this a bug of some kind that was fixed in a patch? I was watching a YouTube video and was reminded by this for some reason. If this is a bug I assume it has been fixed by now.

It shouldn't be compared to Skyrim. Dark Souls is actually a reasonably difficult RPG. Unlike in Skyrim, killing a dragon is actually a challenge.

Well to be fair, no one would have had to shoot anyone if the robbers didn't have guns in the first place. Criminals may buy guns anyways, but this is not the case in countries that already have gun control. That and it is a lot harder and more expensive to buy a gun illegally. People would probably just use other weapons that are not as lethal. The reason it is a argument not to own guns is because it will prevent more deaths in the long run. What if the store owner has a gun and he pulls it out and gets shot because he tried to attack the robber? It would be better in most cases if the store owner just got robbed and called the police, instead of taking a crazy risk that mind get himself killed. Also take note that is is advised to NOT shoot someone who is robbing a store, or use a gun to intervene. It causes more death to do that then it would to just wait it out. It is extremely rare for a thief to kill someone unless they are at risk. Not much reason for a criminal to shoot you if you don't pose a threat first. Pulling a gun of a thief probably has a higher chance of getting yourself killed. Your life is worth more then your money and property. The more guns there are, the more likely there is going to be mistakes with guns. The more likely it is for someone who wants to kill someone to commit a murder. Also consider the following. You are extremely mad at someone and you have a gun. In a fit of rage, how easy is it to pull the trigger on a gun, when you compare it to stabbing or beating them to death? You are going to think about cutting someone up or bashing their skull in a lot more then simply moving your finger.

Kids summer camps do not use real firearms, they commonly use pellet guns and other non lethal weapons for target practice. How could guns in the hands of citizens help in school shootings? Quite a few schools in the US have metal detectors. You are not legally allowed to carry guns on school campus. Not to mention you can't even carry a knife.

It seems like everyone ignored me, but let me say it again. You know that big massacre in Norway? IT WAY ON A KIDS SUMMER CAMP! How many people in the US carry guns in children's summer camps? How many people carry guns in school? More guns would have not stopped it, the same way more guns did not stop multiple college massacres or other school massacres in the US. I am going to go a bit more to the left now that I have read over this topic. Guns are not needed for self defense, they do not help in that case. The Norway shooting would not of been stopped unless you think its a good idea to supply kids with a bunch of firearms. The only reason guns should be legal is in the situation of a bloody revolution. Hunting as well. Any other reason is not valid in my opinion. Guns are not going to defend you as much as they are going to get you killed. Also did someone really mention Communism in relation to MBs name. Seriously? He is as much of a communist as Dark0ne is a evil demon. Just because you have a named you picked a long time ago does not mean it should be taken literally. This has been covered six times now I think. I am also pretty sure Aurielius is not a roman emperor. Or ginnyfizz is some kind of drink.

Not to be unnecessarily cruel but Norway just had a mass shooting spree with over 80 dead, the onlookers from the shoreline could do nothing but wait it out. Hardly a recommending feature to your vision of a disarmed citizenry, being unarmed didn't stop a damn thing except help. One armed hunter could have intervened and saved at least some of the young victims from being added to the tally. Seems rather unlikely considering the shooting was at a kids camp. Pretty sure you are not going to have many guns around a kids camp either way. If this happened in the US, for example at a school/college (one famous example you can probably remember) or at another camp, the exact same thing would have happened.

Apparently taking common RPG elements and RPG graphic styles instantly means you are stealing from TES now.

If I offended anyone with my previous post I would like to apologize. I wasn't in a very good mood. It just kind of annoyed me people are defending Beth so much lately. Thank you, Strike will be removed. ~Lisnpuppy

I would bet this is already out on some torrent site. This was just another silly DRM attempt imo.

Ocean exploration doesn't get any serious government funding to my knowledge.

How the hell does the Elder Scrolls font look anything like the Scrolls font? http://scrolls.com/ How does that look anything like this http://cdn.gamerant.com/wp-content/uploads/Elder-Scrolls-Skyrim-Leveling.jpg or this? http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/2356/morrowind01800.jpg Also the scrolls site has a generic fantasy background that doesn't even come close to matching elder scrolls art style. Not to mention there is not big whatever the f*** that thing is on the right in any elder scrolls game. Also ITS AN DIGITAL CARD GAME. It is not even close to being a rip off, or even being based off of the elder scrolls. They are not trying to feed off the elder scrolls in any possible way. They have minecraft already, and minecraft probably has more PC players then the TES games. They used minecraft to get scrolls advertised. Minecraft is as popular as TES, if not more so. They have no need to use TES to get their game noticed. This has absolutely nothing to do with the elder scrolls. How anyone could possibly think that is beyond me.

The only thing we should be doing in space right now is sending people to the space station and sending drones/rovers to mars. I personally would prefer for people to study the ocean more before trying to get into space. Then again it is harder then you think. Going underwater causes serious pressure buildup. I don't think we can explore the very bottom of the ocean because we don't have a sub that can withstand the pressure. Be reminded that for a person, going down anymore then fifty feet can cause problems. Back when I lived in North Carolina I took lessons to learn how to scuba dive, being far underwater can cause a lot more problems then you might think.

Killing people for lasers is not "just trying to survive." They are tech raiders and their actions shouldn't be justified.

I've maintained this same stance since day one in these debate forums. (In fact since long before I found this one.) I haven't followed this particular debate since I said I was leaving it, somehow I got re-subscribed in time for Lisn's latest post. So, I haven't got a clue "who" is technically winning the debate. I do know the rules of debate, even though I myself do not care to be a great debater. Appealing to a higher authority proves nothing. In a debate, the most persuasive logical argument wins. Last I looked this debate was not whether the law allows gun ownership in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies In the first post he specifically mentions the legality of guns though.. Also @Aurielius What is "cherry picking of history" supposed to mean? He quoted documents from the past that are not as well know as the documents you know. That is not cherry picking history, that is just bring up new texts you were not aware of. Also if you claim it is the job of the court to decide laws, why are you here? This is largely a debate on if the laws are correct or not. We are debating the laws that were decided by the court. If you are going to just say you think the court is right and not make your own arguments for it, there is no point in even taking part in the debate.

If your entire argument lies on a authority figures ruling when it is not accepted by every expert, then it falls under logical fallacy. marharth, I have a legal qualification, and know what I am talking about. I can assure you that if you told either a British or American Supreme Court judge that their rulings were not valid because "it is not accepted by every expert", and started telling the counsel who were quite properly quoting legal precedent that they were spouting logical fallacies, your arse would be hauled off to the cells for contempt faster than you could blink. Judicial precedent has a central role in determining the law in both common law jurisdictions(that's ones that don't have a written constitution, marharth, like Britain, and who rely heavily on it), and in jurisdictions that have extensive Constitutions or legal codes, such as the USA and France. Whether it is a statute or a piece of a constitution, the law has to be interpreted. Now like it or not and leaving out the question of political appointments, you may think that judges are daft old buffers, and I have certainly seen some that are less than sober during the afternoon session, but they really do know their stuff. It is EXPECTED of lawyers that they quote case law to back up their arguments. I take it that if you, marharth, were on trial, you would instruct your counsel not to quote case law as this would be a logical fallacy? By Talos, that phrase logical fallacy is getting a little tired... The difference between a trial and a debate on the subject should be pretty obvious, but if its not I will point it out for you. In a trial you are using law to try to convict someone. In this debate you are debating the laws that would convict (or not convict) someone. If you are debating the laws that would be used in trial it is not exactly a wise idea to use a trial as a example. That is to explain why your example does not work, I will move on to explain in more detail why what Aurelius did was incorrect. To be simple lets say the subject was drugs. The subject is if drugs should be legal or not. Are you telling me that you would mention a case ruling that made drugs legal, to try to argue to keep drugs legal? Without even mentioning the contents of said ruling, it seems a bit ridiculous to use that as your only argument right? I will move on to why his exact quote was incorrect. "Evidently the highest jurists in the land don't agree with the limited view of "to bear arms'." That is his argument. In order to make a proper argument with the use of authority you have to meet two standards. First, the person has to be a real expert on the subject. High jurists are experts on the matter, this is fine. Second, there must be a consensus among legitimate experts on the matter. This is not the case with the second amendment, because its meaning is commonly debated among experts in constitutional law. The argument he is making is an appeal to authority because of the second rule mentioned. His sole argument is that because the highest jurists believe in his point of view, it is correct.

fo1 and fo2 already did cali and the west coast pretty well. With new vegas I don't see them going back to the west coast anytime soon. New York wouldn't make sense. Chicago should be as bad as the FO3 DLC (Can't remember what it was called.)

Waste of time Giiny, because if some don't agree with what is precedent in case law then the Supreme Court must have been wrong....irrespective of the concept that they are the final arbiters of how the Constitution is actually interpreted. Their opinion trumps fact.:facepalm: You agree with the court so they must be right then huh? That works both ways, nice try though. The simple fact is that just because the court makes a ruling does not instantly make it the correct ruling. Ruling have been overturned before and they can be again. Simply because the court says something does not make it fact. Saying that your argument is fact just because a certain ruling said something that matches your view does not make your argument correct. The court is not always right and the courts view is not always the opinion of the majority of experts.

If your entire argument lies on a authority figures ruling when it is not accepted by every expert, then it falls under logical fallacy.