Just watched Jimmy Carr's Netflix special - it contains all these same jokes, and every joke I can ever remember Jimmy Carr telling, so I guess it really is a "greatest hits" standup, rather than all new material like most stand-up specials. It also had more offensive jokes, and a lot of reference to Shane's Mum.

The posh Australian female accent makes me all tingly.

...same thing happens when Charlise Theron gets all South African though.

A self-portrait that very much looks like a selfie, with a bit more effort obviously, but fairly self-indulgent all the same.

Seems like there is a little too much impossible camera work going on. I suppose you could argue that's an artistic choice, and maybe the nature of trailers exaggerates it, but I definitely agree with the impression that it's got that video-gamy, early 2000's CGI vibe to it.

And bug eyes is definitely just creepy. The anime thing doesn't work on this side of the uncanny valley.

All the same... big-budget action, sci-fi kung-fu fighting future-cyborgs... meh, I'll see it more or less by default.

boring to learn it's CG.

I had assumed some optical trickery... e.g. the balls are all the same colour but they appear different colours depending on which pit they fall into.

The only way to change all the bad around us to take down who? To rise up against what?

Deep state control Democrats/ Republicans/ POTUS subservient to a higher power(global elites)?

Obama, Bush, Clinton All the same, sold out / bought or black mailed to do the deep state / global elite bidding? Same for Dems/ Reps? Is this why nothing really changes for the good?

A constant slide toward globalism all the while a less better way of life.

Constant strife, sliding towards a ever more debasement humanity and of values clearly promoted in Hollywood, and media. Who is really pushing this agenda?


This current state of being is a long time in coming not a POTUS Trump fault.. One can argue Trump is not qualified but this was laid at his feet when he took office.

I agree with every point made here... and 5, maybe 10 years ago, I would happily engage in refuting any argument for god.

But it feels like society has gone backward since then.

OF COURSE, there's no god. There's no Santa, there's no tooth fairy and there's no Zeus. Thor was in an awesome movie, but so was fucking Batman (to be clear, I'm talking about the Dark Knight, not that DCEU shite). Doesn't make either of them real.

We've all made all the same logical coherent arguments for atheism, but at this stage it's so blindingly obvious, it's ... boring.

Is there a possibility of god? Uh, fine, I guess... but it's about as likely as me being the reincarnation of Elvis.

At this stage, I no longer have the energy or the motivation to debate people who still believe. Wanna believe in god? Eh, knock yourself out, as long as you don't try to push your fairytales onto my life or the lives of others, I really don't care anymore....

In America poor people have all the same legal rights as rich people (lightning fast response)

Ok, so....

Cops should just jump on people they think *might* commit a crime because: Reasons .

Good call, citizens!

Due process. Due fucking process.
It exists for reasons beyond your cynical worldview...or even worst case scenarios. It exists to protect the rest of us. The majority.

The cops were right there to take the guy away once he did something stupid. They were also "correct" in not doing anything beforehand. Right before he pulled a knife and stabbed someone, he was just being an asshole, nothing more. That's not illegal. Sorry.

and no: you don't want the police "protecting" you. That's what the Mafia does.

So what's the alternative? Preemptive police takedowns? That happens too, and people scream all the same.

Difference is: I'd rather live in a free society where cops wait for somebody (maybe me) to actually do something wrong, than just leave it up to them to decide when you (or I) *might* be a risk, and then taze or shoot you or me dead.

The police are not there to keep you safe. For one, there is no such thing as "safe" in absolute terms, and in my opinion, if there was, you sure as shit don't want the state prescribing that "safety".

But...that's just my opinion.

First question, which country are you from? From what I'm familiar with , Canada and the US both have ALL the same legal rights for men and women. I suppose abortion rights in some states might be the one exception depending on your leanings. Could you share any other rights that need to be extended to women that have yet to be 'equalized' yet?

"You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol."

You are not making any sense. I see what I wrote but it is unclear what you are referring to. You are welcome to quote the part you are referring to.

As I wrote above, you can choose the length of time you are aiming your firearm for. I even gave a comparative set of aiming scenarios.

I love how you take the top end of my approximation as your "laughable" scenario and don't mention the rest of the range (i.e. 50 rounds per minute with mag changes). Could you shoot at one round per second aimed? I think with a little training you could.

Doing 0.2 second splits (i.e. you shoot twice at each target) and taking about a second on every target, using 30 round mags, you can do 90 round per minute without much trouble. Going a little slower, say 0.3 second splits, and taking 1.5 seconds per target you can do about 60 round per minute. I could go on. The point is, these are aimed shots with a higher chance to hit the target, and with just as much chance to accidentally hit another target on a miss. This has the result of more hits on target.

"you get more hits on target in full auto".

No, you don't. On target means a hit near the point you intended on a target. He was getting random hits - as is evidenced by the low fatality rate versus high injury rate. The only way you would be correct was if you argued that he intended non-fatal injuries as much as he intended fatalities (and you're welcome to make that argument - it has some merits depending on what this lunatic was trying to achieve).

"If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't."

The book is good because it shows military statistics with full-auto versus other fire modes. Books are often better than videos. It also outlines military teaching methodology, include marksmanship and how it evolved over time. Full auto is still used in military engagements but you'll find it is used very sparsely (here is a good thread of military and ex-mil talking about it's uses: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-militaries-use-assault-rifles-when-the-full-auto-feature-is-rarely-ever-used )

Short range targets are easier to hit. Are you trying to prove my point? Long range targets are harder to hit. Your rate of randomly hitting targets does not get better at longer ranges. But aiming does increase your chance of hitting a target at any range.

If you really wanted to do a comparison at that range then the targets would be a lot larger than balloons.

You're arguing against established marksmanship knowledge that is readily available over the internet or in firearms courses.

I think you owe it to yourself to prove yourself right or wrong by doing some rifle marksmanship courses. Approach it as a sport and you'll have a lot fun doing it!!!

I can't chat much longer - thanks for the good discussion!

You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol.

If someone wanted to kill with each shot on moving targets at 3-400 yards in the dark, yeah, 5 seconds+- per shot still seem reasonable, maybe half that for someone who practices on living, moving targets often. Your claim some people can continuously do that 120 times a minute including mag changes is just laughable. They might shoot that fast, but not hit anything accurately at that distance.

You have to prove it to convince me...better? If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't.

My claim is you will have more control at full auto than absolute maximum possible finger speed.
My other claim is you will put more lead down range with most full autos. In a crowd situation where missing is basically impossible and aiming wasted effort, like this one, more bullets means more damage. Once the crowd dispersed, aiming a high powered rifle would probably be more effective, but not before. Were this not the case, why would any military allow them, ever?

In this Turkey shoot situation, you get more hits on target in full auto. In target shooting, you won't. This was not a series of targets at 20 yards, it was a target zone at 3-400 yards in the dark.

Spectacular! Bravo! I'm also intrigued by how they are all the same height and very nearly the same build. Must be some challenging audition requirements.

"The 'no penis' thing....yeah, that's kinda nuts"
giggle

"I also see that the right has moved so far right that what one might consider 'centrist' today would be extremist right 25 years ago"

Which reminds me that in the entire conversation I've been pretty much writing off the Reps and the right. I'd really like to see them do all the same things just flipping left for right and all.

I would argue that the right hasn't gone so much further from the 'center' than the left has. Of course, the 'center' is always subjective, but my barometer is basically the only mantra from the libertarians I can agree on, your rights end were mine begin. Maximizing that mantra as much as the practicalities of real world allow is what I would consider an ideally centrist goal line.