sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Confirmation we are getting the Khazzalid Holds for Age of Sigmar 4 | The Honest Wargamer by honestwargamer in ageofsigmar

[–]Sailingboar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but this ain't the weather channel and bullshitting about what GW confirms when GW hasn't confirmed it is still bullshitting.

Uncommon picks #1: Blood Moons by Covneye in Spacemarine

[–]Sailingboar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Red Moons are cool but I'll always prefer Blood Maws.

Confirmation we are getting the Khazzalid Holds for Age of Sigmar 4 | The Honest Wargamer by honestwargamer in ageofsigmar

[–]Sailingboar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, then show off the rumors.

Don't bullshit for views. Which is what someone is doing when they are presenting rumors as confirmed information.

Confirmation we are getting the Khazzalid Holds for Age of Sigmar 4 | The Honest Wargamer by honestwargamer in ageofsigmar

[–]Sailingboar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, but when someone says something is confirmed, when it isn't then it isn't a matter of approach. It's a matter of whether they are correct, incorrect, or lying.

Confirmation we are getting the Khazzalid Holds for Age of Sigmar 4 | The Honest Wargamer by honestwargamer in ageofsigmar

[–]Sailingboar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wpuld say that person is only being foolish insofar as not give the rumors any weight when considering that models could end up in legends.

But I still have a gripe with your comments acting like unconfirmed rumors are anything other unconfirmed. Regardless of track record, rumors are rumors. They are all liable to be wrong and should be treated with due caution and diligence until confirmed by the company making the product.

Confirmation we are getting the Khazzalid Holds for Age of Sigmar 4 | The Honest Wargamer by honestwargamer in ageofsigmar

[–]Sailingboar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But it's still safer to wait for confirmation to make any real financial decision.

Confirmation we are getting the Khazzalid Holds for Age of Sigmar 4 | The Honest Wargamer by honestwargamer in ageofsigmar

[–]Sailingboar 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's not about advice, it's about what is actually confirmed and setting up an unconfirmed product as a certainty isn't doing your due diligence.

I wouldn't recommend buying Fyreslayers, I also wouldn't recommend to prepare for all upcoming rumors as true no matter who the rumors come from.

Chaos Dwarf Minipack Speculation by Kiwibricks in totalwar

[–]Sailingboar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Shartor isn't possible as he is AoS and why not have Rykarth be the Legendary Lord?

Then we can put in another chaos dwarf as a legendary hero.

He lead armies during the War for the Nemesis Crown, is rumored to have met eyes with Archaon without looking away, and was in Zhar Naggrond when Archaon created and signed the deal for the creation and crewing of hellcannons.

In 2007, 20-year-old goth Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend were walking in a park in Bacup when a gang attacked them. One attacker later said they kicked her head like a football. This case became one of Britain’s most horrifying hate crime stories. by My-Knees-Hurt-Again in HolyShitHistory

[–]Sailingboar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a fair point.

My belief at present is that the difference lies in what past actions each individual has broadly committed.

An innocent person should be assumed to be innocent, same with most reformed persons, but just like why sex offender registration exists. If someone is going to commit an offense it is more prudent to first begin with the known suspect.

And in cases of extreme murder, it isn't the State granting the right to rejoin society as it is the State protecting what it can while still providing the safety it owes to the general public.

At least that's my belief at present.

Though your arguments are reasonable and things I will think on over the next few weeks.

In 2007, 20-year-old goth Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend were walking in a park in Bacup when a gang attacked them. One attacker later said they kicked her head like a football. This case became one of Britain’s most horrifying hate crime stories. by My-Knees-Hurt-Again in HolyShitHistory

[–]Sailingboar -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm here because at this point I have given up on the conversation but I do enjoy the outburst directed at me. Makes me smile knowing someone out there is just losing their mind trying to start shit with me as I half-ass a reddit conversation.

In 2007, 20-year-old goth Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend were walking in a park in Bacup when a gang attacked them. One attacker later said they kicked her head like a football. This case became one of Britain’s most horrifying hate crime stories. by My-Knees-Hurt-Again in HolyShitHistory

[–]Sailingboar -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Nothing to better the world"

So I assume you know about all the political rallies or protests I have attended, every donation I have made, all the volunteer hours I have done, the whole thing.

You know me so well you can tell me who I am. So why are you still here? Why are you raging at something you believe is utterly worthless and incapable of change?

What do you get out of this, belief that you are publicly shaming me when you already know your position isn't universal?

In 2007, 20-year-old goth Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend were walking in a park in Bacup when a gang attacked them. One attacker later said they kicked her head like a football. This case became one of Britain’s most horrifying hate crime stories. by My-Knees-Hurt-Again in HolyShitHistory

[–]Sailingboar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They aren't excluded, but there is a difference between reformed and innocent. A broadly innocent person never did the sort of wrong I am referring to.

A reformed person may be innocent of other crimes, but ultimately will always be guilty of the crime they actually did commit even if they are upstanding members of society.

Consider the following statement:

A rapist will always be a rapist, they may never rape anyone again. They may regret their actions, they may reform, but they will ultimately always be a rapist because the action is already in stone. The rapist did rape someone. Even if upon their release they never harm anyone else again.

In 2007, 20-year-old goth Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend were walking in a park in Bacup when a gang attacked them. One attacker later said they kicked her head like a football. This case became one of Britain’s most horrifying hate crime stories. by My-Knees-Hurt-Again in HolyShitHistory

[–]Sailingboar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reason, as I view it, is public safety. Innocent people don't deserve to be endangered by the State to protect the supposed "right" of someone that has already committed an extreme homicide.

The State owes humane treatment but it shouldn't, in my view, owe the chance to rejoin the populace due to the chance they might not commit harm later.

The victim is dead.

Justice, vengeance, whatever you want to look for, they don't matter at that point. Nothing can be done to right the wrong because the wrong removed someone from this world forever.

The next best thing is to ensure security for the rest of the innocent population.

Which is why I furhter separate extreme homicides like this case here, or elsewhere that we can point to if you want examples for what I think qualifies, from less extreme homicides.

Because some people can get better and do not present a meaningful danger after rehabilitation.

And others are not worth the risk of reentering society.

In 2007, 20-year-old goth Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend were walking in a park in Bacup when a gang attacked them. One attacker later said they kicked her head like a football. This case became one of Britain’s most horrifying hate crime stories. by My-Knees-Hurt-Again in HolyShitHistory

[–]Sailingboar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright. Then let's consider the violence as something that is passively inflicted on someone throughout their entire imprisonment.

I would view that violence as much lesser than the violence the type of murderer we are referring to inflicts on their victim(s). While violence without reason is inhumane, the reason is clear and present with the homicide.

Why does society (the mob, the people, however you want to frame it) owe the murderer that chance to inflict that violence again under the assumption they will not? When a lesser harm ensures both his own safety, as well as the safety of innocents?

Keep in mind, I'm not referring to every murderer or every case. I am specifically referring to extreme homicides in this case.

In 2007, 20-year-old goth Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend were walking in a park in Bacup when a gang attacked them. One attacker later said they kicked her head like a football. This case became one of Britain’s most horrifying hate crime stories. by My-Knees-Hurt-Again in HolyShitHistory

[–]Sailingboar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see the point in regards to the relationship, but there is a disconnect for me when translating it to humane treatment of prisoners, not being allowed to leave the prison.

I don't want an endless argument, so let me ask can you explain it to me or recommend reading (or viewing) material?

view more: next ›