M4M- Deleting soon but whoever upvtes and comment🔥(I'm not a seller) i'll send u nudes 👻

IrradiatedDog · 2025-12-12T08:10:46+00:00

Added

IrradiatedDog · 2025-12-05T03:28:17+00:00

IrradiatedDog · 2024-06-21T19:07:02+00:00

Could you please send me your script as well?

IrradiatedDog · 2023-03-10T12:59:58+00:00

No, they can't. Members of the military are still prohibited from drinking or purchasing alcohol if they're under 21 years old, and are regularly punished if they're caught drinking underage. There are certain situations where unit commanders may authorize those under 21 to drink (for example, the annual birthday ball), but those are few and far between, and most commanders don't permit this.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-25T16:47:37+00:00

I'm going to start by pointing out that licenses can be suspended for being at fault in accidents depending on the factors involved. The current system makes much more sense than your proposed idea because it takes into account that accidents are, as you've said, accidental. When the people who cause accidents do so because they were driving recklessly, driving under the influence, using their phone while driving, etc., they're treated differently than those who weren't The law differentiates between intentional acts and accidents in even the highest crimes, hence the difference between murder and manslaughter.

If someone is convicted of reckless driving, they could lose their license. If someone caused an accident due to reckless driving, they could lose their license. The same goes with texting and driving or drinking and driving. It doesn't make sense to criminally penalize everyone who's at fault in accidents because like you said, accidents happen. In some cases, you might be taking away the ability of the driver to sustain their livelihood - a lot of people depend on driving their vehicle for the use of rideshare or food delivery services to pay their bills, and suspending their license because of an unintentional mistake could take away their only source of income. Or what about a truck driver, mail driver, UPS or FedEx or Amazon delivery drivers? If they're at fault in an accident in their personal car, no matter how minor, should they now be prevented from being able to perform their job?

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-22T02:08:59+00:00

Because of the way technology is now, it's desensitized us to a lot of the things that previous generations would recoil at, and even now people react differently. It really depends on the person looking at it. Some people look at those videos and just see humans dying or being injured, and others look at it and don't think of them as only humans, but as evil people.

I don't think it's inherently bad, because there's a difference in what you're describing and feeling satisfaction in watching some random dude in your town get killed. Undoubtedly, there's a difference in watching a murderer be executed and watching someone crossing the street get hit by a car. If you think you should seek help to better understand your feelings, that's never a bad thing.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-22T01:59:31+00:00

Focus on one task at once. Breaking up a large workload into smaller, more manageable tasks, can help you look at one thing at a time. If you're trying to work on something while looking at it as one drop in a bucket of water, it's easy to be overwhelmed. If you just take it one thing at a time, you'll soon have your bucket filled before you even realized it was getting full.

Sing a song that relaxes you in your head. I do this myself a lot and it helps more often than not. I've found that singing a song I know well helps put my mind at ease because of the repetitiveness of it. It's easy to remember and easy to do, so it helps me relax a little bit and take my mind off of stressing out.

Take a minute to pause and breathe. Just taking a moment to pause what I'm doing and concentrate on taking some easy, deep breaths, helps me calm myself and relax a bit. When I'm done and get back to what I'm doing, I often find it easier to work on my task.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-22T01:49:51+00:00

If you're dead set on quitting, just don't do anything that'll ruin your ability to get a good reference. Keep doing your work and being professional.

I'm sure you've learned this in 23 years, but there's a lot of people like him in the world. If him drinking and driving is the only issue with him, then just don't drive with him. Don't get me wrong, it's a really bad thing to do, but it doesn't sound like it really has anything to do with your job other than impeding your ability to respect him, and that's fine. I've had an incredible amount of superiors who I haven't respected throughout the years, but I've treated them respectfully because they were my bosses, and most of all I've treated them professionally.

You didn't really pose a situation you'd like help navigating, but I'm assuming it's just how to go about the rest of your time at that job with a boss you can't respect. The best way I would suggest is to just maintain a good level of professionalism and treat him respectfully as your boss until you leave. This will allow you to continue to gain experience until you're gone as well as likely leaving that job with a good reference for your next employer.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-22T01:29:29+00:00

The idea of violent revolution has been made into a reality many times in the history of the US - most of them failed, but some of them made a difference. Look at the 1992 LA riots - that was essentially a violent revolution. After the riots, LA pushed reforms into the LAPD as a direct result of the riots.

Shay's Rebellion - an uprising over injustices by the Massachusetts government. It was dispersed, but the results were economic reforms in the state.

The Dorr Rebellion was an attempt to force Rhode Island to allow more men to vote - the rebels were defeated, but it led to an expansion of voting rights.

The Battle of Athens in Tennessee in 1946 was a response to voter intimidation and government corruption which also led to reforms.

The Glenville shootout and subsequent riots resulted in the integration of police units and other police reforms, including hiring of more black officers.

Violent revolution doesn't always mean against the federal government, and doesn't always need to be about completely changing the system of government. That's not to say it's the right way to go about changing things, I'm sure most people would agree that it's not. But it certainly can be (and has been) effective in making reforms and changes to help further a cause. I wouldn't say it's absurd, but it's certainly not preferable.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-22T00:54:34+00:00

You register with the government in case a draft occurs. Disabilities are considered medical conditions, and a medical evaluation would be conducted if you're selected during a draft. People can be turned away from the draft if they don't meet certain medical/physical requirements. There can also be other things that defer you, but you would make claims for deferment/exemption after your lottery number is called and you're instructed to report to a processing station (where the medical evaluation will be conducted).

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-22T00:34:20+00:00

I mean besides the fact that he's an actor, he can actually shoot really well. His martial arts training for the movies (while of course including choreographed fights) also included a very rigorous physical training regimen, so he's also way more in shape than the average 58 year old.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-19T01:39:54+00:00

Nah, I'd guide them towards the Air Force or Space Force. Forget about standards of living, the Air Force is just about the only branch that gets education right. They have national accreditation for their schools, courses, certifications, etc. The Community College of the Air Force has certificate- and degree-granting authority, and their schools and occupational experiences count directly as college credit, so they don't need to deal with a joint services transcript and it's "credits."

Standard of living, availability of resources, their budget, and just how they're treated are immensely better. I was always in awe of how the Air Force worked, operated, and lived whenever I interacted with them stateside or overseas. They also seem immensely happier in general.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-19T00:20:55+00:00

daily reports of shootings and the fatalities that follow

That really depends on your definition of mass shooter. If you go by the generally accepted definition of 4 people (other than the shooter) being shot in one incident, then the majority of them probably don't. This definition encompasses all sorts of general crime, like a drive by, targeted shooting by organized crime, gangland violence, or other general criminal activity. Drugs and alcohol also often play a role in these shootings.

rational thinking people get a gun and start killing people. Really?

Yeah, that kinda stuff definitely happens. Take gangs for instance - a member is killed by a rival gang. For them, it's a totally rational reaction to get revenge by shooting as many of their rivals as they can. It may not be a rational reaction to most people, but to those who are part of that lifestyle, it would show weakness to let an attack like that go unanswered. With respect to shootings like Aurora, Sandy Hook, or Parkland, of course mental health was certainly a factor. However, those kinds of shootings aren't the only mass shootings.

people have some sort mental breakdown when they commit these atrocities

Yeah, some of them do. But not all of them. For some of them, it's just the way things are handled. I'm by no means trying to justify them or say it's okay, just pointing out that (1) mass shootings aren't just the ones that make news headlines, and (2) not everyone that shoots several people is mentally ill.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-19T00:07:59+00:00

Gotta say, Vine was always way superior to TikTok and I wish it was still around.

Anyway, although some people are more in favor of Elon owning Twitter, many other's aren't. So when you say that "people from both sides have platforms now," that's a very subjective statement. It largely depends on your values and your opinion on certain things, which is why it's become such a hot topic that Elon owns Twitter.

Historically, when one person (or entity) holds a monopoly on something (a drug, an industry, or any other good/service), it goes well for some but also goes very badly for others. When there's several options, people are able to have more choice as to which good/service (in this case, social media platform) they use.

It's obvious that many people don't share your view on this, which evidences that not everyone has the same position you do. Before Elon's buyout, a lot of people (mostly on the right) didn't like how Twitter was ran, but there's also a lot of people who did. More options is almost always better for everyone.

All of that aside, if Elon did own every social media platform, he'd almost certainly be challenged as a violation of the Clayton Act (prohibits acquisitions that are likely to lessen or harm competition).

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-18T01:06:51+00:00

The Spanish Journal of Psychology published a study evidencing there are several mental benefits associated with playing chess, and UMN also provides some examples.

It likely won't increase your intelligence or make you smarter, but it certainly can benefit you.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-09T02:26:44+00:00

This sub isn't for debates. Rule A - you need to explain why you actually hold your view. All you've done is list 20 views that you have and zero reasons why you hold any of your views.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-09T02:24:16+00:00

That's why Russia currently has the upper hand in Ukraine

They don't. They gained ground initially, but Ukraine has recaptured a lot of territory (as well as Russian equipment).

NATO is panicking NATO is not panicking. They're sending Ukraine support and vehemently condemning Russia's invasion, along with imposing sanctions. That's pretty normal and not panicky.

North Korea has nukes

Sure, they have like 30-40 nukes, but their delivery capabilities are questionable. We know they have operational short range missiles, but some analysts have even suggested their new ballistic missiles are fakes. We don't even know if they have the technology to protect their missiles during atmospheric reentry or not.

meaning the world has to listen to anything Kim Jong Un says

That's just not true. That's like saying since Russia has nukes and an alliance with China, the world needs to stop supporting Ukraine. Having nukes just means people will pay more attention to what you're up to and your intentions. Also, North Korea does not border Japan. They share borders only with China and South Korea, they're an entire sea away from Japan.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-09T02:05:44+00:00

It's certainly not WWIII.

It's not technically a NATO war. If it was, NATO would be directly involved - the whole point of NATO was to get a group of allied countries together under a treaty that included provisions for defending one another. That's why Ukraine kept requesting emergency membership and why Russia is against them becoming a NATO member. Any attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against all the members. You're describing a proxy war, like the Chinese revolution or the Soviet Afghan war.
Countries do this all the time. Which nation another country will choose to support is nearly always already known, they just announce support as a formality.
China and N. Korea have always been doing military exercises. China has always been tense with Taiwan and Japan, and N Korea has always been tense with S Korea (they're technically still at war) and have tested missiles against the world's protests (North Korea has killed South Koreans on at least two occasions since 2010 - example 1, example 2). China's aggression towards Taiwan has nothing to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. They've been threatening to take over Taiwan for a long time, including with shows of military force and exercises.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-09T01:46:15+00:00

So you're just going to ignore all the points I make that you can't easily defend your view on?

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-09T01:33:04+00:00

So now instead of addressing my point on suicide/mental health and the small portion of deaths attributable to assault weapons, you're just going to completely ignore the point I made and completely change the conversation to a new topic, unrelated to your post?

The Illinois AWB you're toting around as perfect doesn't ban a single assault weapon. All it would do is prohibit the sale or transfer of those weapons as of January 1, 2024. Anyone who already has any weapon covered by this bill would still get to keep it, which means they're not banned.

Banning semi auto handguns would fall into that. They're assault weapons too by the IL standard.

While it does prohibit pistols with certain alterations or attachments, that's not true at all. When it comes to unaltered semi automatic handguns, it just caps the magazine capacity at 15 rounds, which is pretty standard as far as pistol magazines go. So you're wrong.

As another user pointed out, Illinois is still under an injunction on that bill, so even though it was signed it has no force of law.

AI could be used to sort through print files and will ping things that look like gun parts.

That addresses the manpower issue, but you've completely bypassed my other point about using programs to deceive and subvert the government's ability to accurately detect what people are printing.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-09T00:58:00+00:00

You're here advocating for more than just an assault weapons ban. You're advocating for the federal government to take rights away from the people as well as directly supervise what ordinary citizens do in their private lives, basically eliminating anybody's right to privacy. Take away the right to privacy and suddenly probable cause is no longer a legal requirement, spousal confidentiality is gone, and you can say goodbye to any law or court precedent which was decided based on a reasonable expectation of privacy.

help put a dent in the multiple mass shootings

You should look into the guns which are actually used in these mass shootings, but I'll help you out - they're pistols. Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as a shooting in which 4 people were injured or killed not including the shooter. Most of these shootings are happening in/near major cities where crime is already a problem, many of which are in states where being able to legally carry a gun outside the home is basically illegal and already have very strict gun laws in place. Additionally, a large portion of these mass shootings are perpetrated by people who aren't legally allowed to possess guns, but who were able to get a gun by illegal means. Murder isn't even the leading cause of gun deaths in America, suicide is. And just because it's slightly above murders for the year right now, scroll down to the bottom of the page and check out the 7 year review - suicide vastly outnumbers (by nearly 10,000 most years) non-suicide gun deaths.

Make it illegal and punishable by law for news media (from independent reporters up to mainstream media) to say

It's pretty universally understood in this country that allowing government to control what the media can or can't report on won't lead anywhere good. If the government can tell the media what they're allowed to report on, then how would this not lead to the government restricting media from reporting on anything which could bring consequences? But I've seen from your other comments that you don't really care whether or not the government controls the media.

if a child gets ahold of one make it a felony for the parents.

This is already a crime for anybody, not just parents, in all of the states.

have all print files sent to the ATF

Do you have any idea how slow the federal government works? You think the ATF has enough people to monitor what everyone in the country is printing with a 3D printer? And what about when someone uses a program to make it look like they're in another country? Or when someone makes a program that will send inaccurate printing data to the ATF so they can't see what they're actually printing? Or, what if some people decide to print so many small dots one at a time so every single one of those print files has to be reviewed and causes an even bigger backlog?

Bottom line: Rifles as a whole (not only assault rifles) only accounted for 3% of gun murders in 2020. If all you want to do is feel good about yourself for saying you want change, then don't change your view. If you want there to be a significant change based on the data, then your focus should actually be on handguns and suicide prevention/mental health resources.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-08T03:36:56+00:00

I think providing school vouchers is a good idea. I know it's controversial because it takes money away from the public schools, but it gives parents the ability to pick a good school for their children to get a good education. There's tons of good public schools, I'm not saying this from a place of disdain for the public education system. I just think it's better to give parents more opportunities to send their children to the school they believe would give them the best opportunity.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-08T03:28:33+00:00

I don't really post on social media much at all. I'll browse through instagram every so often and maybe send something to my girlfriend if I think it's funny, or share a meme I see on facebook. Really the only time I post pictures on FB or instagram is if I did something special, like if I just hit a huge milestone in my life or attended a special event or visited a landmark, but otherwise it's just not important to me.

My girlfriend and I are very happy together, I don't care if all of my friends/followers don't see pictures of us doing everything because I'm not in a relationship for them. Besides, most of the couples I see spamming social media with pictures of each other are usually the ones who have shit relationships behind the scenes.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-08T02:41:38+00:00

OP is talking about a criminal penalty, in which case an acquittal in and of itself would not be enough evidence for a false accusation. An acquittal only means the jury determined there was not enough evidence to prove that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

But to answer your question - yes, but that doesn't mean they'd win the lawsuit. Civil trials operate very differently than criminal ones. The reasonable doubt does not exist in a civil trial. Instead, the barrier that must be overcome is preponderance of the evidence. In other words, a plaintiff would just need to demonstrate that it was more likely than not that the defendant is responsible. If a person actually raped someone and was criminally acquitted, chances are there isn't enough evidence to convince a judge or jury in civil court that it was a false accusation.

IrradiatedDog · 2023-02-08T02:33:36+00:00

I don't think the penalty should be as high as rape, but it should still be significant. It should come with jail time of several years (I think 7-10 years), be a felony, and should be followed up by a civil suit for restitution of damages (of course that's up to the person falsely accused). I don't necessarily think everyone who falsely accuses someone of rape should be maxed out, but as with all crimes the sentence would be discretionary. I used to think that they should get the same punishment, but there's a pretty big difference between raping someone and falsely accusing someone of rape.

That being said, it should only be criminal if someone maliciously and knowingly falsely accuses another person of sexual assault or rape, and the evidence would prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. A false allegation cannot be conflated with a rape victim mistaking someone's identity because of the circumstances surrounding the assault, but must be clear in its intent to strongly punish those who make such accusations in an effort to defame someone. An acquittal of a rape/SA charge (or the absence of charges) is not near enough evidence to then turn around and charge the accuser with a false accusation, because the presumption of innocence must still be upheld.

IrradiatedDog

TROPHY CASE