1,250 Forum Posts by "Saen"
Burr burr cain bree through mah nose
At 2/22/13 04:40 PM, TheMason wrote:
I want to begin by apologizing on behalf of all legal, ethical hunters. I have no love or respect for poachers. Here in Mo, if you are poaching or road hunting and get caught you are arrested and your truck, everything in your truck, and your rifle are all seized.
I appreciate it, but this is not the case. It is completely legal to hunt from your truck so long as it is not moving and the motor is shut off. This is by far the most popular method of hunting deer in Florida.
"Shooting from vehicles, powerboats or sailboats moving under power. Motors must be shut off or sails furled, and the vesselâEUTMs progress must cease from such motor or sail before hunters may take wildlife."
As for the use of dogs in hunting, this is actually a traditional method for hunting going back through colonial times, the middle ages, and to the first dogs prehistoric humans domesticated. In modern times though, many states such as Missouri prohibit the use of dogs in taking game such as deer but allow them for hunting small game such as raccoons.
Once again not the case in Florida, perfectly legal to hunt deer with dogs.
You are correct to be upset over poachers and road killers. This is not hunting, legal, or ethical. It also gives hunters a bad name. However, it has been my experience that legal & ethical hunters far outnumber the those who are criminals.
It is legal and it gives hunters a bad name.
But at the same time, I would like you to recognize that you err in painting legitimate hunters with too broad of a brush. Furthermore, there are many reasons people hunt. Some for sport, others for meat, and yet others for wildlife management. Me I'm the latter two. I'm not in it for the sport. My reasons are twofold...
I don't think any less of you for being a hunter, as an outdoorsman and a student of biology I have respect for decent hunters and their role in maintaining ecosystems, but they are few and far between.
When I get time to travel I plan on hunting invasive pythons and water monitors in the Everglades and hopefully I'll get the chance to spearfish Lionfish and feed them to native sharks and grouper.
As for hunting methods:
These too change with the hunter. Some hunters prefer more traditional means of hunting such as black powder, bow, and even an atlatl. However there are some ethical issues with these methods that cause hunters like me (who are not in it for the sport) to prefer modern firearms:
1) You point to hollowpoints as something that takes away from hunting. But here's what it adds: humanity. These rounds are quicker to kill which means that the animal suffers less. It also means that wounded animals are easier to track and do not run as far, therefore the hunter can use a pistol to put it out of its misery instead of not being able to find it and so it dies slowly, painfully. So I think using ballistic type ammo is by far more ethical and human than traditional hunting methods.
Hunting deer ethically isn't really a concern to me, but I understand why ethics laws are in place for vertebrates.
2) You brought up accuracy. In the days of the Revolution the military had smoothbore muskets. These things were very inaccurate. But when you had lines of soldiers marching towards each other you did not have to hit the guy you were aiming at. It was just as well to hit one of the two guys on his left or the two guys on his right. By the civil war our guns had something called rifling (hence the term rifling) which made their shots much more accurate. However, these guns required that each shot's powder and ball be loaded by hand which meant that (even though powder charges were pre-made) there was some variation between loads...which effected accuracy. This lead to the invention of the cartridge which reduced this variation.
Bolt-Action rifles have always had decent accuracy, but never a rate of fire or ammo capacity comparable to a heavy assault rifle. Like you said, you can hunt with an AK-47 and have similar power and accuracy to a bolt-action , but you get semi-auto and much larger capacity.
It's just my opinion, and it's nothing to get worked up over, hunting with a heavy assault rifle takes the sport out of it.
The accuracy of the military rifle probably reached its zenith between the 1870s and World War II when most armies used bolt action rifles. These remain the most accurate rifles out there because they are most efficient in terms of energy as well as stable. Automatic firearms provide the shooter with other advantages bolt action rifles do not have...but at the cost of accuracy.
3) Re-read my post. I was not saying anything about bladed weapons being used for hunting. Instead, you made a comment about 'risk' being part of hunting. I was merely pointing out that this is an absurb argument, and only makes you sound like you do not know anything about hunting. I was making my point by comparing your argument to those guys who come in here and say you do not any type of gun for home/self-defense. Your re-buttal does nothing to help your case...it is if anything a weak attempt at manipulating what I was saying into another line of argument. One that fails utterly.
Well I'm not one of those guys who thinks you shouldn't hunt with a gun or protect your home with one. Whether you make the sarcastic claim that we should protect ourselves or hunt with swords, either way it's absurd. I'm not afraid of guns nor will I ever be a gun fanatic, it's too expensive and unnecessary.
But on the federal issue, it is probably not going to go anywhere. Furthermore, why are you absolutely disgusted? At this point I have provided you with links that show you that LCMs are not causing the type of carnage that you think they are.
You're being quite reasonable, it's the monkeys that keep hooting, hollering, and jumping in the fray thinking I'm out to get their guns that are driving me crazy!
Also, I share the same goal as you: preventing needless deaths due to gun violence. The only difference is I'm looking at this from the perspective of what options are:
A) What options are realistic?
B) What options are effective.
At this point all the science points to is dealing with the magazine issue will not solve any problems and what effect it would have would be trivial compared to the effects of mobilizing the same money and manpower in other directions.
Like educating poor populations on excessive gun-buying (addiction) and it's role in the circle of poverty.
We have these debates on guns specifically to determine which are ethical, appropriate, and safe for civilian use. Because of this recent massacre committed by a common high capacity assault rifle, the debate on the Ar-15 has resurfaced.
We have already tried these things and there is some evidence of their effectiveness. But, these are limited. For example, in the case of gang shootings (which are a HUGE portion of killings) there is a culture of non-cooperation with police which reduces the effectiveness of the police to solve the murders.
And I agree with you, gun laws are not the most effective nor cost effective in preventing gun violence. Education on the circle of poverty and dedicated funding towards the poor will not only be the most effective in reducing violence, but also in bulking and strengthening our middle class by reducing lower class numbers.
Instead of spending the money on punitive measures hoping they will be a deterent...why not spend money on programs that will actually tackle the causes of gun violence...instead of symptomatic media sensationalism
Poverty is the leading cause of violence, excessive population growth, and disease everywhere in the world. It is the root of almost every major global issue.
Here's to supergandhi64, progressing this thread further and further to becoming locked. Keep it going and you'll be retard of the day for 3 days in a row!
Here has been the most popular abortion thread in politics, just hop on over before he trashes this thread!
At 2/22/13 04:26 PM, darkjam wrote: Yeah after you're 10, it just get boring because of puberty and taxes and shit. Am I the only one who thinks this?
Lmao puberty and taxes? So bitching about a small penis and having to pay taxes, sounds like you're growing up to be quite the redneck!
Ah, an issue your generation of girls has become so out of touch with. Your grandmothers and in some cases your mothers fought so hard for your rights only to be stripped away bit by bit by subsequent brainwashed generations.
No one has said this yet, I'm surprise. CANADA has a military? ahahaha oh man..
At 2/22/13 03:00 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep /27/gun-crime-map-statistics
This is pretty cool. Isn't it ironic how every state in the bible belt has a murder rate higher than the U.S. average? I guess Baptists scratched out the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".
At 2/22/13 12:56 PM, Entice wrote:At 2/22/13 12:54 PM, Saen wrote: stuffGoogle image search "business woman" and you're set with a lifetime supply of softcore pr0nz
Aww, I'm not seeing too many halfway decent looking blondes. Gonna be slim pickings for me.
At 2/22/13 02:40 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
30,000 deaths a year NATIONALLY is hardly a liability.
It's actually the highest among all industrialized nations. Here, here, and here my good man.
At 2/22/13 02:33 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
Which they weren't so you can't actually say that.
So tell me why Adam Lanza couldn't do as much damage to children with the supposedly high powered "assault weapon" that a student could do on a college campus with two pistols?
450 people at Sandy Hook Elementary, over 17,000 students at Virginia Tech uh duurrrrr!
That is your own logic there.
The faster the rate of fire the less accurate you are, but you've been told this many times.
High capacity magazines are prone to jamming and the rounds often used in them are designed to not make death inevitable. It costs your opponent more to nurse the wounded then bury the dead. Including during actual combat, fighting strength is affected when wounded need to be removed from the field.
The AR-15 is called "military style" for a reason. Because the similarities aren't that strong.
My logic is Adam used a weapon with plenty of ammo capacity, rounds with enough power to shoot through desks and doors, a high rate of fire, and deadly accuracy. He killed all his victims (other than himself) with one gun, even though he was carrying two handguns. This is why the Sandy Hook shooting resurfaced the debate on the legality of assault rifles and high capacity mags.
I was pretty severely bullied through elementary and middle school, and yet I found this video too abstract and not down to earth, little too artsy for me as well. It seemed too cliche', like an observer's story on bullying rather than a personal experience, whether or not that is the actual case.
The best way to confront bullying is self-empowerment in my opinion. Finally committed to that in high school, when I started eating healthy, working out, and found an interactive hobby (tennis team). I felt mentally refreshed and accomplished, physically strong, and had a new group of awesome supporting friends on the team.
Seriously though, working out made a difference you wouldn't believe. When I first took weight training in high school I was skin and bones, but when you never quit and you do the push ups, leg lifts, sit ups that your coach is ordering, people around you notice and everyone respects tenacity. Not too much time passed and I got along well with the football players and wrestlers even though I was a little white boy who only played tennis.
At 2/22/13 01:46 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
lets I own 36 firearms and if I have to pay lets say 100 a month for each whats 100X36 thats $3,600 annually and the fact that the premiums can go up is even more discerning.
Lmao I'm sorry did you mean to say 36 firearms?
to bad thats not the case seeing California, Chicago, NYC, Jersey just do the research. they are all heavy Gun control states and haven't done shit.
And what about Louisiana having the highest homicide rate? Florida, North and South Carolina, Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi, all much some of the highest murder rates, even higher than New York or New Jersey
I lived in the murder capital of Florida, Jacksonville for 12 years, turn on the 11 o'clock news, 3 people dead, shot to death, every single fucking day. A high concentration of guns along with little to no regulation is a huge liability. This is exactly why the southern states have the highest murder rates.
At 2/22/13 01:49 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
Like I've linked the DoJ doesn't think it will have an affect. And the most fatal school shooting of all time was carried out with two handguns with a 10 and 15 round capacity.
Most mass shootings in general occur in gun free zones.
Guess who actually cares about gun free zones (Hint not mass murderers)
Then how was Adam Lanza able to kill 26 people and his own mother with a weapon that's supposedly not lethal, unreliable, and inaccurate? This is directly adressed at the weapon used, not whether or not teachers, children, or officers were armed.
At 2/22/13 01:16 PM, Saen wrote:
Here is an opinion of mine which I'm sure you'll fine interesting. One method I'm in favor for reducing gun violence is much harsher legal punishment for gun-related crimes. For example, a person murders someone else in cold blood, so shooting someone over an x-box, $20, drugs, etc. is put in prison FOR LIFE, period.
Now I can see how you'll take this the wrong way and yell, "Well people will just use knifes to kill each other retard! Guns don't kill people, floobity derp de durp!"
No that's not the idea, the idea is murder in cold blood = in prison for life :'(. Potential criminals think "gee wiz, maybe I shouldn't shoot this guy for $20 so I don't get locked up for the rest of my life."
At 2/22/13 12:40 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
yeah because the republican party values and preserves the Second Amendment for the reason it was drafted to protect yourself and have a means to overthrow a tyrannical unconstitutional government. Hollow points ruin the meat because you wont be able to separate it from the meat if you had knowledge in the subject you would know that.
Completely missed the point I was making.
yup its not unheard of to hunt from a truck in some areas since hunting season there is COLD.
Like I've said, definition of a pussy.
lets see you trek 3 miles with 150Lb of gear then when you finally get a shot. or at least wait Semi-auto is use to ensure you get a clean kill with the second round otherwise if you use more than one you have a chance of ruining the meat.
Going to be much much more than 3miles trekking if you're actually hunting and tracking your target. That's why very few Americans and certainly no hunters in Florida actually do this, they're far too lazy! They sit in their truck on the side of the road, let their dogs out into the woods, and sit and wait, they don't even step foot in the woods!
where do you live? and I call bullshit with the knife its probably because the forest area is private land with no trespassing and hunting there can lead to either a misdamenor to a FELONY (in some states)
The Apalachicola National Forest in the panhandle of Florida, where hunting is most certainly allowed in season along with with a hunting license.
not really. Magazine size is a DEAD ISSUE, it doesn't promote spray n pray, it james more often and they are cumbersome.
if anything they are for self defense (20R pistol mag) or competitive and recreational shooting.
It is certainly not a dead issue in Connecticut and many other states, but I am absolutely disgusted and through talking about it any further with you guys.
because U.S. Insurers Resist Push to Make Gun Owners Get Coverage and the fact that gun owners (citizens), the Gun Lobby and gun makers don't want it. the bill that they tried passing would make gun owners insure there guns which would cost $200 a firearm Monthly
An it's not too expensive for an average gun owner to buy dozens of guns, even take out loans to buy more guns, and yet they can't afford the insurance?
now why don't you go back to General?
My first post ever on NG was in politics and was the reason I created an account in the first place.
There is nothing more precious to a redneck than his gun, that's why these debates get so heated. I've lived in the south for just about my whole life, I'm used to it. The point of a gun control debate is to reduce violence and killings, the vast majority of which are caused by guns.
Here is an opinion of mine which I'm sure you'll fine interesting. One method I'm in favor for reducing gun violence is much harsher legal punishment for gun-related crimes. For example, a person murders someone else in cold blood, so shooting someone over an x-box, $20, drugs, etc. is put in prison FOR LIFE, period.
Appearance: Blonde, long straight hair, blue/green eyes, B-cup through C-cup, firm ass, toned stomach, 5'4" through 5'8" so average height, perfect facial symmetry and complexion.
Personality: Intelligent, right-brained (so more creatively oriented), independent, hard-working, funny, opinionated.
Attributes: Fit and with loads of stamina, is comfortable in and enjoys the outdoors, and has good taste in food.
Career: Business woman with a management position.
Wealth: Earns at least $80k/year, drives either a Lexus, Acura, Audi, or Mercedes sport sedan, coupe, or convertible (no SUV period).
Nope, I believe my generation would label dressing and wearing shit like fedoras as "hipster". But hey what do I know.
So back in the days when war was conducted with muskets, a frontline footmen could afford to be less accurate than if he was armed with a semi-auto? Absolutely not. When you have x-amount of reload/recovery time after firing a shot, you need to be that much more accurate when firing opposed to a semi-auto of similar accuracy.
This will be my final though on hunting. One of the biggest contradictions within the conservative party is their views on guns and hunting. When it comes to any other political issue, the old way and preserving traditional methods always comes first. But when it comes to guns and hunting and even fishing, technology can't progress fast enough! Semi-auto heavy assault rifles, high caliber hollow points, shooting from a helicopter, truck, off-road vehicle are all very much embraced in the America way of "hunting".
Oh and Mason, no culture of people on this planet has ever used swords or knifes as weapons for hunting. The most extreme method of hunting (a method which none of you could possible fathom doing let alone imagine possible) is marathon tracking and hunting, where one or a few runners, armed with a spear chase and track their prey for hours until it physically collapses from exhaustion or is within throwing range.
Any weapon or hunting method that makes your target as easy and efficient to kill while keeping you as far away from danger as possible adds to the sport of hunting in your minds. Fucking definition of a pussy right there. Hell hunters here won't even step foot in the woods, because they're afraid of coyotes, bears, or burning a few calories! Meanwhile I spend the entire day deep in the forest with only a knife, compass, and my experimental equipment! This only adds to my point that gun fanatics are terrified of their own shadows and will never feel adequately armed for any kind of threat. What a way miserable way to live your life.
Obviously reducing magazine size would be cutting too much off your dick sizes, so I suggest we move onto another topic.
Requiring liability insurance for owning a gun. Gone on, tell me why you all disagree and that this is another outrageous and constitootionally unacceptable idea!
At 2/22/13 10:37 AM, TheMason wrote:
Saen...it would have been far better to have just not responded. That is the best way to concede a point on a BBS discussion like this. Better yet is to acknowledge that you have nothing to come back with.
But...to try and weasel out of being pinned down is just bad form. You are the one who brought up the beach setting. You have also brought up public settings in a general sense, and naked/foam parties in the specific sense.
I'm the one who gave the nightclub and bar examples.
So yeah...you HAVE focused on public settings where skimpy dress is common...as well as nudity and I have addressed those arguments. You on the other hand have not addressed my points on this.
And now you try to squirm away from your point? Very bad rhetorical form.
This really isn't important enough to type this much about, who said what, but that's fine. What did I not specifically bring up, bars or nightclubs, you got me. Nothing to get worked up about.
These would be things like law enforcement professionals and training on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response...something every military member goes through on an annual basis.
Ok, name a sexual assault prevention program that has incorporated dressing in jeans, pants, latex suits (lol couldn't resist) as a part of prevention training.
Let me say...I'm glad you're thinking about this scientifically. However, the main problem is you suffer from a fatal methodological error: you're not measuring rape incidences. You're measuring something else and including, as a vast majority of your data points, the interest of non-rapists. So this study would provide no useful responses.
At most this type of realistic experiment would be supplementary statistics and data or some type of control.
Now what could be studied:
* prison interviews with convicted rapists
* interviews with persons who have served their time for rape/SA
* interviews with victims on their rape (suffers from ethical and methodological dilemnas thought)
* have law enforcement record type of clothing (also suffers from some ethical dilemnas)
The first three are not methods of experimentation, while the last is a method of observation.
Furthermore, I have been to frat parties. And guess what? Outside of formals...I've seen girls in jeans. Designer, high-class, tight-fitting jeans. And guess what else? They were getting hit on just like the girls dressed in mini-skirts or dresses.
So this point fails.
Really depends on the type of party and the prestige of the sorority/fraternity.
And clothing helps make you vulnerable if it facilitates the rape. You have not addressed this point but danced around it.
If there is clothing that facilitates rape, what clothing would adequately protect you from rape?
Secondly, it is not just about the predator's 'stalking process'. It is about how vulnerable the girl is in the situation. In the event of a rape attempt...will her clothing work for or against her.
Again, what clothing should a woman wear in order to protect herself from being raped?
But simply stating them does not make them relevant to the discussion of the effectiveness of dressing defensively. So at this point my argument still stands.
And one last time, what should a woman wear in order to prevent herself from being raped?
At 2/21/13 04:31 PM, TheMason wrote:
Dude...you do realize that there is a difference between a beach setting where there are wide open spaces, daylight visibility, ope family-orientated businesses, etc...and something like bar hopping or a frat party where a predator could relatively easily incapacitate and isolate a woman from people who would come to her aid.
So no...we were NOT discussing a scenario just like this one.
Not focusing on a beach setting, any public setting where dressing skimpily is common. That's why I gave the nightclub, bar, concert, house party examples.
A few things:
* You do not address the core of my point that women often wear clothing that makes rape easier while frequenting areas and activities that could help facilitate rape.
Yes I have been trying to tackle and focus on this the whole time! It's difficult when there haven't been any case studies or incident reports on this!
A good hypothetical experiment on this would be to have a group of women dress differently in different settings. Groups of women in a more conservative sundress, a women in jeans, women in a bikini/lingerie, and more in between if you'd like. Hypothetically all of these women would have to be identical in appearance and personality. Then drop these women off at a frat party and record the number of rape attempts and successful rapes preformed on each clothing class. Recording both addresses what may lure a predator into rape and what clothing made led to the highest successful rape percentage.
Obviously this experiment is nearly impossible to preform. A more realistic experiment would be measuring the "attention factor" each outfit has for a group of similar looking women. So instead of measuring rape incidences, you would record the number of times each clothing class gets approached and hit on by a guy.
-- The attractiveness/sluttiness of the clothing is a seperate issue. June Cleaver in her conservative, Stepford Wives sundress would be easier to rape than a submissive wearing a latex body suit (as long as their is no zipper in the crotch).
lol I hope you meant spandex, because latex is rather easy to rip.
--Wear a slinky dress to homecoming & dances, wear a bikini at the beach, or take it all off at a naked party. But if you're going to a frat party or bar hopping...you may want to wear jeans.
And the price to be paid? Put yourself in a woman's shoes, your mission of the night is to grab the attention and hook up with a specific cute guy you had in mind. You go to a frat party (where is it customary for Sorority members to dress high class, so every girl is in a dress) and you show up in jeans. Not only will you blown off by the one guy you were aiming for, but ridiculed and kicked out from the party.
As for the bar scene the same idea applies. A girl dressed in jeans will be outcompeted by a girl dressed classy or stunning on a night out.
Regardless, a predator will choose a victim who appears the most VULNERABLE.
No one deserves to be raped. Nor should how they were dressed or activities they were engaged in (I know a girl who was into the BDSM scene who was doing a bondage event and was raped)...EVER be a defense for rape. Do not confuse what I'm saying as assigning blame OR providing a basis for a criminal defense of rape.
I haven't accused you of blaming women for being raped or anything along those lines. The idea that the mechanics of women's clothing is a deciding factor in a predator's stalking process is just not true.
If you wan't women to protect themselves from being raped, there are much more effective measures they can take rather than the clothing they wear. Not drinking too much or drinking anything that's not yours, don't isolate yourself, keep your phone with you, always go out and leave with your group of friends, make sure you're familiar with the place you're going to, learn how to defend yourself, etc.
Bet I could rip this fucking hippy in half
At 2/21/13 04:27 PM, 372 wrote:
Yes. Exactly. I've dissected its relevance down to the mechanisms of cyanobacteria. Maybe further. But that is all I can say for now.
I see you are a studying biology. We're gonna get along very well.
Cyanobacteria are asymmetrical though, however being asymmetrical has always been linked to an older evolutionary timeline, or more primitive development. Hey pm me your lab work if ya want.
At 2/21/13 04:20 PM, 372 wrote: Guys I swear to god, I'm publishing a Scientific theory this month that would just blow this debate to pieces. Seriously, I've been intensely studying the relationship between symmetry and the origin of life for 2 years now. I'm pretty obsessed with it.
I wanna post it so bad, but I know I can not :(
So evolutionary significance of radial, bilateral, penta-radial, and asymmetrical body structures?
Shit it's gotta be either Stairway to Heaven or Free Bird.
Being the retard of the day is a title that is suppose to be lightheartedly joked about. The reason why you're the retard of the day is suppose to be hilarious and makes an entertaining story.
There is seriously nothing to weigh on creationism, there is no debate to have between evolution and creationism simply because they have nothing to do with each other.
Evolution is quantifiable, creationism is not. Experimentation can be applied to evolution, not the case for creationism. Furthermore evolution is scientific theory which is on it's way to graduating to scientific law, creationism isn't even a valid hypothesis.
So Supergandhi64 wins our retard of the day award? All in favor?
Not a painful shit, but my best shit story by far:
I was severely constipated several and hadn't shit for a week, maybe more. Two of my friends and I were at the grocery store buying shit for our trip to Universal Studios, and I picked up a 3/4 liter bottle of magnesium citrate, a stool softener. When we got to the hotel I read the bottle, it said to drink a couple teaspoons to relieve constipation. I drank the entire bottle.
I woke up at 2am, ran to the toilet and took my shit. My entire shit took place within a few seconds and I pushed it out with so much pressure that I flew liquidized shit on the wall 6ft infront of me, all over the shower curtains, and completely lined the toilet bowl, seat, and backrest with liquid shit. I had shit all over my cock and balls, it was seriously everywhere, but surprisingly it didn't smell too bad. I begged my friends to come and look, but they wouldn't, so I took my shower went to bed.
The next morning we went out to the park and after each ride I ran to the bathroom and repeated the process over and over in the public restrooms. Ended up bleeding out my ass a month later and had numerous CAT scans and shit haha, but it was worth it!
At 2/20/13 09:48 PM, Sensationalism wrote: Such a surfer.
I like in that 70s show where they do that but with the football helmet. And Kelso always has to end up wearing it.
Ahaha oh yes we've had plenty of awards related to surfing, kayaking, skim boarding. Man I wish we used some kind of prop like that! Whoever won though was at the butt end of everyone's jokes.
