Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,967
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #19287255 - 12/17/13 05:37 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

I'm glad you asked.  I don't know how you define "police force" for purposes of your question, but since this was originally about deadly force, I'm going to assume you mean without using any deadly force or threat thereof.

Humans can't be ready all day, every day.  People have to sleep.  People have to leave their houses.  A crew of 10 people could easily watch a person and wait for a moment when they are not ready and surprise grab that person.  He's only got two arms to reach for a weapon, so two people could easily restrain those long enough for a third to disarm the guy.

Plus, let's not forget that we're talking about abducting a person who is so fucked up that he is unable to think rationally...That's also going to give the abductors a huge advantage.

Simply put, it would be just a matter of choice.  The policy would be simple:  Do not use/carry deadly force during the operation.  That policy would override everything else.  If it means waiting a few extra days, weeks, or even months to get the opportunity, then that's what it means.

Certainly, using deadly force would be cheaper and easier...but as I've already said, the use of deadly force against someone you're supposed to be helping is absolutely inappropriate.  If my way costs more, then that's just the price of doing business in a moral way.  Since we're talking about the most extreme of cases, the cost would still be far less than our current "war on drugs".


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSleepwalker
Overshoes

Registered: 05/07/08
Posts: 5,503
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: Enlil]
    #19287288 - 12/17/13 05:54 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
unable to think rationally




How do you define or decide when a person has reached this point?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: Enlil]
    #19287298 - 12/17/13 05:58 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

I have to say, your way doesn't seem very moral.

Moral to me would be not using force to make someone go where they do not wish to go when they have a substance abuse problem. I have no problem locking up someone who is a threat to others, but to force someone into rehab who does not wish to go is abhorrent.

And while I saw where you say:

Quote:

I certainly wouldn't want to see anyone who can responsibly manage their addiction be forced into treatment.  Certain addicts reach a point where they have completely lost the ability to rationally control their behavior.  These are the people that need treatment...mandatory if necessary.  If a person has reached the point where their brain is so fucked up that antisocial behavior is inevitable, I feel it's much cheaper to treat them than keep incarcerating them.




I think though that without knowing just how you define "antisocial behavior" we will not be fully in agreement.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: Enlil]
    #19287304 - 12/17/13 06:03 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:Humans can't be ready all day, every day.  People have to sleep.  People have to leave their houses.  A crew of 10 people could easily watch a person and wait for a moment when they are not ready and surprise grab that person.  He's only got two arms to reach for a weapon, so two people could easily restrain those long enough for a third to disarm the guy.



A siege, in other words. Starve him out.

If what you say is true, what moral reason would there be for not applying this protocol to all arrests of individuals accused of non-violent crimes? Someone who refused to pay his taxes, for example. Or someone who missed his last three court appearances.

As an aside, how effective do you think this method would be in capturing say, a biker holed up in his clubhouse with a few of his buddies? 


Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,967
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: Phred]
    #19287357 - 12/17/13 06:36 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
I have to say, your way doesn't seem very moral.

Moral to me would be not using force to make someone go where they do not wish to go when they have a substance abuse problem. I have no problem locking up someone who is a threat to others, but to force someone into rehab who does not wish to go is abhorrent.




Again, I'm not talking about people with just "a substance abuse problem."  I'm talking about those extreme cases of addiction where the person is unable to rationally make decisions for his/her own well being.  I'm talking about people who have hit the point where they are so delusional that they're equivalent to people with serious schizophrenia. 

In such cases, leaving a person alone to destroy themselves is immoral.  If someone rationally chooses to kill himself, I'm fine with that.  If someone rationally chooses to kill himself with heroin, I'm fine with that.  I'm not talking about those people, though.  I'm talking about those people who have negligently reached a point in their addiction that they are killing themselves and have little or no control over it.  In those cases, I'd err on the side of treating that person first.  If, after treatment, they still want to kill themselves, so be it.

Quote:

Phred said:
A siege, in other words. Starve him out.

If what you say is true, what moral reason would there be for not applying this protocol to all arrests of individuals accused of non-violent crimes?Someone who refused to pay his taxes, for example. Or someone who missed his last three court appearances. 


I can't think of any moral reason not to.  I can think of a few practical ones, but I basically agree with you that this method should probably be used for other crimes, too.  It would almost certainly increase the cost of law enforcement, but we wouldn't have people shot and killed needlessly.

Your question does bring up an interesting point, though.  You seem to be equating my hypothetical forced treatment abduction with law enforcement.  They are unrelated, though.  The purpose of the forced treatment would NOT be to punish or enforce any laws.  It would be to help/protect those who cannot help/protect themselves.  It would be a mission of compassion.

Quote:

As an aside, how effective do you think this method would be in capturing say, a biker holed up in his clubhouse with a few of his buddies? 




Obviously, anyone with enough resources and/or enablers could delay the process indefinitely, and it is what it is.  The goal is to help people who are incapable of helping themselves.  That goal would never be served by escalating the situation to the point of deadly force.  Society can only do so much.

Quote:

Sleepwalker said:
How do you define or decide when a person has reached this point?




Defining it is easy.  Determining if a person has reached that point is far more difficult, and it's definitely not my expertise.  I'm confident that a system could be put in place, however, to evaluate people that appear to be at/near this point.  No system, of course, will be perfect, and it would have to strike a balance between serving the goals of helping those that need help and protecting the privacy and autonomy of those who are simply choosing to use a substance.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: Enlil]
    #19287405 - 12/17/13 07:02 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
I have to say, your way doesn't seem very moral.

Moral to me would be not using force to make someone go where they do not wish to go when they have a substance abuse problem. I have no problem locking up someone who is a threat to others, but to force someone into rehab who does not wish to go is abhorrent.




Again, I'm not talking about people with just "a substance abuse problem."  I'm talking about those extreme cases of addiction where the person is unable to rationally make decisions for his/her own well being.  I'm talking about people who have hit the point where they are so delusional that they're equivalent to people with serious schizophrenia. 

In such cases, leaving a person alone to destroy themselves is immoral.  If someone rationally chooses to kill himself, I'm fine with that.  If someone rationally chooses to kill himself with heroin, I'm fine with that.  I'm not talking about those people, though.  I'm talking about those people who have negligently reached a point in their addiction that they are killing themselves and have little or no control over it.  In those cases, I'd err on the side of treating that person first.  If, after treatment, they still want to kill themselves, so be it.




Then we'll have to disagree. I don't believe in forcing others to do things even if it's in their own best interests.

Barring criminal behavior, there is no adequate justification for forcing people into treatment that they do not want.

If indeed people "have negligently reached a point in their addiction that they are killing themselves and have little or no control over it", so be it. It was their choice to make.

Who are you going to impose your will on next? Those who overeat? Those who neglect medical issues? Those who have smoked tobacco until they have their voice box removed and smoke through their blowhole?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,967
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #19287408 - 12/17/13 07:04 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:

Barring criminal behavior, there is no adequate justification for forcing people into treatment that they do not want.




So you are against treating unconscious people found at the scene of a car accident who have not yet consented to treatment?

Are you against parents forcing treatment on a child with a broken leg when the child doesn't consent?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: Enlil]
    #19287421 - 12/17/13 07:13 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

An unconscious person has no ability to consent (or not) to anything.

The child is a minor.

Neither is the same thing as forcing an addict into treatment they do not want.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,967
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #19287432 - 12/17/13 07:22 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

In some cases, they are the same thing.  A child can't consent because he is incompetent to make rational decisions about his health.  An unconscious person suffers from the same problem.  An adult with a mental impairment could also be in the same situation.  Competency is necessary to give consent...I'm sure you'd agree with that.

My argument is that there are extreme cases of addiction wherein a person becomes incompetent much like a child, a mentally handicapped adult, or a severely mentally ill adult.  In those cases, the afflicted can't give consent because they're not competent to do so. In such cases, as a society, we should assume that they would have given consent if they were competent...just like we assume that the unconscious person in the wrecked car would have given consent.

If a person wants to get addicted and go off the deep end, I've no problem with that, as long as that decision was made when they were competent to do so.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: Enlil]
    #19287462 - 12/17/13 07:39 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

You're not going to be able to convince me that a person who chose to do drugs and did them to the point they are addicted, is the same as an accident victim or a minor. Period.

An accident victim didn't choose to be an accident victim.

Society has deemed minors incompetent to make their own decisions.

You're talking about putting a person who has chosen a particular behavior into treatment for making a choice you deem harmful.

The accident victim you describe can't give consent. Society doesn't value a minors consent. An adult who chooses to decline treatment should have his wishes respected, whether for addiction or medical procedures.

I don't want a nanny state deciding my behavior (as it affects me) needs treatment.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,967
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #19287467 - 12/17/13 07:43 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Okay, so if an extreme sports athlete, who willingly put himself in danger, was injured to the point that his brain didn't function properly, he'd be shit out of luck because he chose the dangerous sport?  He can't give consent, so we just let him die?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: Enlil]
    #19287477 - 12/17/13 07:51 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

No. In your hypothetical he was injured in an accident and as you put it "can't give consent".

However, if he was able to deny decline consent, he should be left alone. Just like the addict.

Edit: Didn't use the word I wanted.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,967
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #19287484 - 12/17/13 07:56 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

An addict who has reached the point I'm talking about can't give or decline consent just like a child or retard can't give or decline consent.  You may not think that such people exist, but they most certainly do.

There is really no difference between the two situations, either.  The athlete didn't jump off the cliff on a bike for the purpose of injuring himself just like the addict didn't shoot heroin for the purpose of rendering himself incompetent.  Neither intended the result, but both are now rendered incompetent to give or decline consent.  You'd treat one and not the other despite both being currently incapable of giving or decliing consent.

A 5 year old who says, "I don't want to go to the doctor" is ignored because he is incompetent to make that decision for himself.  In extreme cases, an addict can be equally incompetent to make decisions.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: Enlil]
    #19287511 - 12/17/13 08:06 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

I had an addiction. A rather serious one. I know such people exist.

That doesn't matter. They made a choice to do drugs. If they decline treatment (even one you deem to be for their own good), you don't treat them.

Quote:

You'd treat one and not the other despite both being currently incapable of giving or decliing consent.





Absolutely. One made a choice, the other was in an accident. I wouldn't treat the accident victim either if he came to long enough to say no even if he had a head injury.

I don't want your wishes/desires/compassion to over-ride my choices. Your desire to "help" me should never over-ride my desire to not be helped.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,967
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #19287532 - 12/17/13 08:11 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:

I wouldn't treat the accident victim either if he came to long enough to say no even if he had a head injury.





I'd agree with this, and I'd apply this to the addict as well.  Once he was detoxed enough to make a rational decision, if he chose to discontinue treatment, I'd have him sign a statement declining further treatment and leave him to his self-destruction.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: Enlil]
    #19287538 - 12/17/13 08:14 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)


Simply put, it would be just a matter of choice.  The policy would be simple:  Do not use/carry deadly force during the operation.  That policy would override everything else.  If it means waiting a few extra days, weeks, or even months to get the opportunity, then that's what it means.


What alternate world would this happen in?  :lol: I'm talking about this real world we live in now.  No police force is going to wait around 10 days or months for a chance at an addict when they need to be  policing the streets. And how many would want to do it without a weapon in case something went terribly wrong?    This is a truly bizarre position to take imo unless we are just playing "I wish".

btw I wouldn't worry so much about your fine character being besmirched on a druggie forum. :lol:  I've never seen anyone get so self righteous on such a unimportant issue before.  :wink:

As for me I think you're a cool dood most of the time. :thumbup: 



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: Enlil]
    #19287541 - 12/17/13 08:16 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:

I wouldn't treat the accident victim either if he came to long enough to say no even if he had a head injury.





I'd agree with this, and I'd apply this to the addict as well.  Once he was detoxed enough to make a rational decision, if he chose to discontinue treatment, I'd have him sign a statement declining further treatment and leave him to his self-destruction.




Nope. You forced the addict into detox.

Therein lies the difference. You'd force someone to be treated. I would not.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,967
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: Icelander]
    #19287561 - 12/17/13 08:22 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

I never said it would be a police force.  It would have nothing to do with law enforcement.  If you think it's not possible, then you haven't been out much.  People, including violent fugitives, are apprehended every single day in this country by people who are not armed with deadly weapons.

As I said before, the goal is to help people who are incapable of helping themselves.  This isn't about law enforcement.

And if you think that not tolerating lies about me is "self-righteous", I suggest you look up the term.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,967
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #19287566 - 12/17/13 08:23 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Nope. You forced the addict into detox.

Therein lies the difference. You'd force someone to be treated. I would not.



And we've come to the point of mutual understanding and disagreement.  Hooray for us.

Except that I wouldn't necessarily force someone to be treated.  I wouldn't be morally opposed to it if it were proven necessary and effective.  We haven't really discussed the "effective" part.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Edited by Enlil (12/17/13 08:30 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Affluenza: The Wealthy Getting Away With Murder [Re: Enlil]
    #19287606 - 12/17/13 08:38 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
And we've come to the point of mutual understanding and disagreement.  Hooray for us.




Yes. Hooray. I'd not force treatment (even in the addicts interest), you would.


Quote:

Except that I wouldn't necessarily force someone to be treated.  I wouldn't be morally opposed to it if it were proven necessary and effective.  We haven't really discussed the "effective" part.





Say what? Forcing someone to be treated is what you've been advocating all along.

Quote:

I'm talking about using forced treatment of an illness in the most extreme of cases....




--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Mushrooms v. murder: Sentences in Kansas don't fit toxick 1,072 3 12/02/03 07:27 PM
by Learyfan
* Hippies support mass murder and blood baths
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Luddite 8,107 96 09/11/07 12:16 PM
by Seuss
* Class Warfare: Hatred of the wealthy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
RandalFlagg 9,399 126 11/24/03 02:51 PM
by havatampa
* Why do you think the most wealthy states and cities voted democratic in the recent election?
( 1 2 all )
Catalysis 3,635 32 11/12/04 12:36 PM
by Worf
* Another female hostage found murdered - dismembered, disembowled, throat slit
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
HagbardCeline 10,002 104 11/25/04 12:01 PM
by zahudulallah
* Director murdered after making film critical of muslim mysogyny in afghanistan
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 4,096 57 11/04/04 05:50 AM
by downforpot
* Help. Hooked on driving my SUV. Need treatment immediately Grav 477 6 06/01/04 12:36 PM
by Seuss
* Suspect in Dutch filmmaker's murder makes dramatic court room confession lonestar2004 1,317 11 10/22/05 09:39 AM
by Los_Pepes

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
10,379 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.