What I don't understand is that the guy was working as a taxi driver. So with an income, he should have been able to see a hooker, or pay a girl a drink, and well, finding a partner the normal way. I don't know how hard are Austrian jails, but I hope he'll face hard times.
He was raping a 10 year old boy. I doubt very hard that the problem was money or hookers. Pretty sure he has a not working brain. Tbh castration and deport him. Im pretty sure ppl will think twice before raping someone.Problem being that you're wrong here. It wouldn't make anyone think twice. Rape is not something thought and planned most of the time. Which means they don't THINK. Well, castration is a good definitive solution though. Or death penalty/lifetime jail. I don't think rape should be forgiven, ever. |
|
|
|
"No temperature increase in 20 years" Meh? Where did you wear in the last 20 years? All records show a global temperature increase for the last 50 years but also for the last 20. It's a very strange statement you're making. The 'hiatus' of the last 20 years is broadly accepted on all sides. Here, for example, is a 'warmista' site that just happened to come up top in a quick search: http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperaturesOf course it is widely assumed that the reason the models have been wrong and temp readings are low-balling things is that the earth is heating more or less as predicted, but the energy is hiding out somewhere where it is hard to find. The ocean is the usual culprit. For my part, given that sea surface rises are also not acting as the scare-mongers predicted, I'm a little skeptical about that explanation as well. The suggestion that natural variations in climate were seized on and pumped up as a means of gaining increased control over populations seems the strongest hypothesis to me at this point. Especially since doing essentially that, and for that particular reason, was discussed many decades ago by the same basic class of groups who are now reaping the rewards of the global climate change panic. Some people seem to indicate that when the pent up energy comes out of hiding it will be very devastating for us all and especially for [insert target animal here] unless we start paying a lot more in carbon taxes. Scam? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...Well, maybe I'm dumb as hell but your graph clearly show an increase of temperature Oo And so are most sources I managed to find, including NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/I mean you can't see that curve and say "no it's ok it's not increasing at all" no? Oo Go argue with the warmistas. Almost without exception, the basic construct of the warming 'hiatus' of the last 20 years is accepted among scientists of all stripes. The problem is how to deal with it. For the sheeple, it is easy. Tell them 'hottest year ever' every year. They don't understand margin of errors anyway and even if they did, their memory span is measured in weeks. For other scientists it is a more tricky issue. But as a 'climate scientist' one can make lemonade out of lemons; anyone who adds to the 70-ish and growing explainations for what might have eaten the energy trapped by the evil man-made greenhouse gasses can expect accolades and grant money to come out of their ears. The real problem here is the problem we (climate change believers) have to discuss facts with you (climate change denyers). Your graph clearly show an increase. In the sense that the average temperature continully increase in it. It does the same in every other graph I can find. And yet you're here saying "no proof of temperature increase in the last 20 years". It's like I'm pointing the sky saying "it's blue" and you're answering "no look, it's green". The fact that we all share this opinion is at least a proof of how bad you are at communicating. I would even dare suggest that it should maybe make you think on the truth of your statement, but that's personnal opinion for sure. |
|
|
|
It's as easy to go from Spain to France than to go from California to Texas.
no, it is not.... It is. Roads are open, no control, no border. You get the same rights, the same possibilities. You can open a bank account, buy a house, work... Just the civic duties and rights which are not the same. You wouldn't have the right to take an election for example, and some works are forbiden to stranger too, like being a judge or working at the government. But it's more or less all the same. |
|
|
|
....
But making the sell of drugs legal and nationalize it yeah! More money for the government and a good control on quality and help for those who needs it! =)
Yeah, that's a great idea. Do something because it gives more money to the government... No, what is a great idea is to take the money currently financing mafia terrorism and crime in general and to send it to the government. I know you don't like centralized government but I hope you also believe it's still better to have government taking the money than the mafia no? It's not doing it to give government money, but rather take advantage of the situation and take the occasion to redirect the money from crime to government that's all. |
|
|
|
We are not a top-notch nation like British or Germans I didn't say that. We are something inbetween (Russia and Eastern Europe are neither developed nor developing counties). Anyway, we Europeans are all the same and have only the very small different cultural aspects. We Europeans are all the same? Really? Well I hear new dumb things from your mouths every time I come back on this thread! And how do you measure the differences between the different races? You've got tome way to measure an average value of each representation of each genes and then compare races by races and gene by gene? Or you just look at them and decide they're different enough? Russians, Ukrainians, Polish, Germans, Finnish, etc are the same. I find these nations as one because we have the same origin we are one race. Niggers, sand niggers, etc have a different origin. They are different. Again look into polygenesis theory. Well we all have the same origins if you want to get it this way. And I'm also interested in how you measure differences between individuals so to ba able to determine what's a race and what's not, and how does one person belong to a race, and what are the consequences. I mean, I don't give a fuck about what you believe, you seem to be too stupid to think Whatsoever. But don't pretend your shitty concept is backed by any kind of scientific proof or theory. It's just your nonsense and your feeling of weakness that's all. |
|
|
|
You need science to prop up your faith in God. Christians I know have a very strong faith in God, without any need for science.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Star Wars reference! That's it! +1!! Man, I haven't laughed like this in a long time. Thank you! Kudos to you - you're the first to get it. Have to admit, I was doing some sniggering myself when I wrote it. Lol! Well, when you don't really have a debate but rather a unilateral discussion, you gotta have fun when you can xD It won't go much further I think though, you all repeated the same thing around 5 times, I hope it'll end their :3 |
|
|
|
No it's only because they have some white genes in them at a point! And the ugly white women are the daughters of women raped by black niggers that's all!  Damn those people with their silly ideas... And they come saying "look at their careers" Yeaaaaaaaaaaah sure! Nothing to see with the fact that 40 years ago blacks hadn't even the right to go in some schools xD |
|
|
|
|
Oh, I think I answered my own question!
Of course dice site is well known on the internet because of all what you said, but it's not known in real life because... It can't!
It just can't! On the internet you can make a program with multiple probabilities, but a dice game in real life would have nothing comparable to an onine dice game!
Last thing to understand is why dice game online are not much more popular with fiat...
|
|
|
|
I just don't exactly see other reasons explaining such a difference, and especially not the "USA is more diversified" bullshit of Tecshare which is not only insulting for the whole EU but also based on absolutely nothing as far as I can see.
I already explained why my statement was correct. He who claims proves, and your proof is not very compelling, especially considering how large and diverse the US is compared to these other countries. EU has twice the population of USA, 28 times the legislation complexity, numerous different cultures and etcnics groups, dense history, more or less 25 different languages, and you just come here and caim that it's "not so much diversified, especially compared to the US".
Unfortunately all of Europe is not a country. Europe is a collection of countries all with different policies, laws, cultures, ethnic groups, population densities, taxes, and national budgets. Europe is subdivided into many smaller nations. The USA is ONE SINGLE NATION composed of more than 300 million people, all of them from different places all over the globe. In France there are native French who all share a common culture. In Spain there are native Spanish that all share a common culture. In Sweden there are Swedish who all share a common culture. This provides for more cooperation and understanding within local communities that the USA does not share because it consists of one single, very large nation upon which it is illogical to impose laws which might otherwise be effective for your otherwise tiny and more culturally homogeneous nations. Of course this whole side topic itself is a strawman argument, but this time I actually did make this claim, so I felt I should defend it regardless of your fallacious diversionary tactics. Sorry in the midst of your long, boring, most of the time stupidly precise posts (but also insulting don't worry) I feel like I missed this part which is rather interesting. So maybe we could say exactly the same thing from the USA? It's as easy to go from Spain to France than to go from California to Texas. The EU is totally free in terms of work and movement. it would be interesting to look in details the concentration of races/cultures in each countries and compare it to the one of the USA but it's a rather important amount of work which I don't think we're ready to provide. Hence your statement is absolutely not proven. You're just making the assumption that each European nation is less diversified than the USA itself. If that's not a logical fallacy... You're just moving the problem from a greater scale to a lesser one that's all. |
|
|
|
I'm for gun control in the means that convicted criminals and children should not have access to it. Besides that people have the right to protect themselves and should be able to own guns.
And how do you ensure that children have no access to guns? Sadly enough, around 60 children die each year just because they found a gun somewhere. I know it seems not a lot, and it sure isn't compared to the millions of inhabitants. But what does a life is worth? Especially a child life. And 60 is the federal estimation, most other institutes have MUCH HIGHER data. But even the federal one is too much I think  http://everytownresearch.org/reports/innocents_lost/Thousands of children drown each year, why is it people such as yourself are not rallying to ban swimming pools? Would banning swimming pools not reduce the rate of accidental child deaths much more than banning guns? Why is this less of an issue to you? Perhaps your own bias against and ignorance of firearms? http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsSafeSwimmingPool/Again you're just stupidly stalking me. Why wouldn't you, maybe, read my post again and the post it refers to. I was answering someone saying he wants gun control to be put in place for convicted citizens and children. He literally says "children shouldn't be able to access them". To this I answer that it's sadly not possible to ensure such a thing, and that at the moment most children already can't access guns legally but still dozens of them die anyway every year. Your answer is totally out of the subjects. i never said that gun control should be put in place because 60 children die every year. I simply says that you can't prevent that AND keep gun freedom. After it's your concern to see if 60 children lifes is worth gun freedom. |
|
|
|
I'm for gun control in the means that convicted criminals and children should not have access to it. Besides that people have the right to protect themselves and should be able to own guns.
And how do you ensure that children have no access to guns? Sadly enough, around 60 children die each year just because they found a gun somewhere. I know it seems not a lot, and it sure isn't compared to the millions of inhabitants. But what does a life is worth? Especially a child life. And 60 is the federal estimation, most other institutes have MUCH HIGHER data. But even the federal one is too much I think http://everytownresearch.org/reports/innocents_lost/ |
|
|
|
Hmm... We were not comparing gun deaths but violent crime rates. And they were much higher in the USA than in European countries where strict gun control is applied.
Like how Violent Crime increased in the UK as a direct result of banning guns? How do you explain this one?  Yes rather easily. First: the rise seems to not be the direct consequence from gun ban. If you look red and blue curves, they're not at all symmetrical. Seems like they're was an upper trend: the violent crimes rate was already levelling up and the rise seems to be independent from gun licenses. Second: but if they're independent that means gun control is not an efficient way of lowering violent crime rates. Of course what I'm going to say is hypothetical, that's a good explanation I think but there can be no proof of my reasoning. If you look at the evolution of the rates, you can see there is first no impact of gun control on violent crime rates, but then: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/United-Kingdom/Crime/Violent-crimeYou see that the violent crime rates significantly decreases year after year. My explanation (which is, again, hypothetical) would be that the rates diminish with the number of firearms actually in circulation. It's not because the government creates gun control that the population will immediately gives the guns to the police. It takes time for guns to finish in the hand of the police or to be forgotten somewhere or even thrown out. But as nobody sells guns, in the end the number of guns owned by the population can only decreases. Which is why the violent crime rates also decrease, but with some inertia. Again, it's all hypothetical but I find this explanation rather logical and realist. |
|
|
|
I also never came across dice sites until coming into the bitcoin world, I have had a go and it is fast and quite dangerous if you get carried away, I can definitely see the attraction.
Yes of course but then why isn't there any kind of dice gambling in the real world?  Maybe dices are common in Las Vegas? xD But I never saw any kind of dice gambling unless it was online and playing with btc! The funny thing is that even with fiat it's not common at all online, it's all in btc  |
|
|
|
Gun control does absolutely nothing to reduce crime...
The numbers you see are just statistical manipulation, I'll explain...
You see people compare numbers like, "Gun control laws vs gun deaths"... this is a poorly(?) chosen statistic...
Why compare "gun deaths"? Because "gun deaths" includes things like suicides, accidental shootings, etc... very different from "gun murders"...
If you compare the gun control laws of a country vs violent crimes, you will see that gun laws do nothing to stop violent crimes... gun laws only reduce "gun deaths" (mostly suicides by gunshot get reduced)
In places where guns are illegal, people resort to stabbing weapons like knives for their violence (UK is a great example)
UK has now make knives illegal because those became the weapon of choice since guns were already illegal...
Do you know what that will do? NOTHING!... people will murder each other with baseball bats next... gun laws do not stop violence!
Nobody wants to see baseball bats become illegal! Watch that first step, it's a slippery slope!
Hmm... We were not comparing gun deaths but violent crime rates. And they were much higher in the USA than in European countries where strict gun control is applied. Where you're right though it's that statistical correlation is not a proof. But I'm not giving a proof. As I said it's impossible to prove it unless doing some kind of A/B testing on a part of the population xD It's just a statistical element that I think might be correlated with gun control. But again you can argue that violent crimes rates are different for other reasons. I just don't exactly see other reasons explaining such a difference, and especially not the "USA is more diversified" bullshit of Tecshare which is not only insulting for the whole EU but also based on absolutely nothing as far as I can see. |
|
|
|
Hey people!
I've got a question for you all:
Why is dice so popular in btc world?
I mean, gambling is not specific to btc, lots of people gamble in fiat no problem with that. But (at least in Europe) dice gamble is something that barely exists! Roulette yes, poker yes, blackjack yes! But dice? Never saw any xD
It's a bit special, maybe dice is a lot more common in the USA or in Russia/China but I find it really specific to bitcoin! And I wonder why dice sites are such a huge trend in the btc gambling world!
Any idea?
Part of btc gambling history and easiest to make provably fair which is the biggest reason to gamble at fair dice instead of fiat casino the latter are not fair and have huge house edges. Plus most bitcoin holders are math geeks and dice is pure math so it sort of fell into place. Oh.... It's true? No other kind of gambling installed the provably fair feature? I suppose it can be declined on anything no? Cause it's always a question of "is the site really giving random results or not" so provably fair is just here to check the randomness of the result! But true for the math part, I had lots of fun on my first betting games on dice xD |
|
|
|
Many people have a gambling problem because its very addicting to gamble, you want to win money with gambling but all you do is losing. Gambling is always risky and its also that you want to win your money back so you can make profit.
A lot of people have got problems by gambling, they get blind because the money. Its easy to say but its not easy to stop gambling by a day. I think you need to do other fun things and thing about your friends and family you will lose. I don't understand how it can be difficult. You got to consider that once you enter in a casino and you transform your money into chips, this money is lost. It doesn't mean that it will of course, but you HAVE to consider the money is lost, that you won't see it again. This way if you lose well, it was normal and you don't really care because you knew it And if you win you're happy as hell  Never bet anything and thinking that you'll get it back. Cause you won't from times to times! |
|
|
|
I see another risky goods odds bet today.
Golden State Warriors @ Washington Wizards
Moneyline: Washington Wizards @ 5.6
I will bet BTC0.005 for this match.
This is a risky one. For those who are new to NBA bettings I suggest not to follow this.
Risky indeed. Why the sudden faith? Anyway taking a risk with 0.005btc is not really a risk ^^ But yeah don't bet 1btc on this one. Or be sure that you can afford loosing your btc. |
|
|
|
|
Hey people!
I've got a question for you all:
Why is dice so popular in btc world?
I mean, gambling is not specific to btc, lots of people gamble in fiat no problem with that. But (at least in Europe) dice gamble is something that barely exists! Roulette yes, poker yes, blackjack yes! But dice? Never saw any xD
It's a bit special, maybe dice is a lot more common in the USA or in Russia/China but I find it really specific to bitcoin! And I wonder why dice sites are such a huge trend in the btc gambling world!
Any idea?
|
|
|
|
Jesus is the rock. I am founded on Jesus. Of course talking to me is like talking to a rock... You can't move the foundation of the universe, the Rock, Jesus Christ. Humm... Jesus is different from the Bible. The biggest part of the Bible has nothing to do with Jesus, you know that no? Now what started this line of thinking? Actually, you are wrong. The whole theme of the Bible is to show the salvation that Jesus provides. In fact, the beginning of the Gospel of John in the New Testament says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. In the quote, the word "Word" is used to refer to both Jesus and the Bible. In addition, Jesus, Himself, said, referring to the Scriptures (Bible): These are they which testify about me. The Bible is essentially, at least in theme, Jesus. What about the Leviticus for example? Which is the part where homosexuality or the worship of other gods is heavily punished, most of the time by death (and a painful one). What's the link with Jesus here? |
|
|
|
Until science discovers and proves that nothing is magical. Just because it wasn't explained until now it doesn't mean it's magic. It just means that at the moment we don't understand it.
Imagine showing our world to a person that lived 100 years ago. He'd be dizzy in a moment and maybe couldn't understand or adapt his whole entire life.
Just as a exercise for your mind: think about yourself being born in 1901, and slowly get closer to our times: how many wonderful are really incredible discoveries have been made? It's astonishing!
Thank you science - you rule!
Never said the contrary. But science can't explain the creation of the world. Why? Well just simply because in science 0+0 is always 0. If we manage one day to explain the creation of the world "scientifically" it will be by a new way to consider the world which will be as different from current science as from religion. And again science and religion are not opposed! I see no reason to give up one or another. I'm an engineer and I still have the faith! I know by heart the Maxwell's equations but that also makes me even more aware of what science has still not explained and might never explain! Science is sometimes very disruptive. You claim you're an engineer then you probably know that the quantum revolution created a new part of science that couldn't have been even imagined before. If we discover dark matter for example maybe it'll lead us to something totally incredible that might even explain the universe! And that's a complex explanation. I only tried to stay simple with people from let's say a century ago imagining a plane. Faith is good, and people can believe whatever they want, just don't try co convince people that have evidence, to believe things of which you only have a book written by a bunch o guys to stand your words on. I never tried to do so Even, I tried to explain why I think faith is good but why atheists shouldn't be condemned for not having faith, so you can't say i'm trying to convince you ^^ Finally a reasonable man. You keep you faith. We'll gonna keep science. Hope it'll be well in the end for all of us. Just stop trying to force your religion on us. Yeah BADecker - I'm talking to you. Hmm... No i'll also take science ^^ As I said I think you can have both, science and faith, I don't see why I shouldn't understand how the universe works to be able to have the faith to believe in God! You can have both But I do have faith my dear gentlemen - faith in science. That is still faith is it not? And I know what will happen a minute from now. 5 things actually: 1. it's gonna get dark 2. I'm gonna eat something 3. I'm going to have a cola after it 4. you'll just continue with your babble 5. and finally, again, you'll continue to ignore our point if view and insist that you're the only one that is right and all uf us are wrong. Except that you know none of these things for a fact. You just think you do. The example is that you have been unexpectedly wrong at times in your life. Thank God that He keeps the universe reasonably stable for you that many of the things you predict based on experience actually happen. A lot of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki knew exactly what was going to happen to them in the next minute. Then suddenly they were simply gone, in a second. This is pointless. I'm feeling like don quijote. I'm done. You make me feel sad and tired. You should feel sad and tired... sad that you don't really have any control over your life... and tired, caused by believing two sets of contradicting data. I'm sad that other people are stupid. And I'm tired because talking to you is like talking to a rock. But thank you for telling me that I deserve it. Great encouragement from a Christian. Never expected anything less. I'm already energized again. Jesus is the rock. I am founded on Jesus. Of course talking to me is like talking to a rock... You can't move the foundation of the universe, the Rock, Jesus Christ. Humm... Jesus is different from the Bible. The biggest part of the Bible has nothing to do with Jesus, you know that no? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
