Xenidal

Oh, also I forgot about that Keyblade that Sora used to release his heart and become a Heartless. That one was awesome-looking.

I have not. I have been replying to you and other people who obviously do not understand my point and need it to be repeated for clarity or to re-explain why your statements are incorrect. You are the one who keeps making me repeat myself. Besides replying to specific points of yours which you cannot grasp, I have not once repeated myself in this discussion. On the other hand, you keep saying the same things over and over and I'm not even bringing them up... and when you do repeat yourself you have never elaborated on any point past what I have already addressed. That is a fallacy right there... repeating yourself over and over again does not make what you're saying true (and since you are not repeating yourself for any particular reason it isn't adding anything to the discussion either...) And when did I ever compare the two? I was replying to your statement that "if someone ends up in a position such as being drunk then anything bad that happens to him as a result of ending up in that position is his own fault and therefore not unjust toward him." This applies to everyone. The attacker himself was shot, if the shooting was unjust, then he was just as much a victim as any other unjust action against anyone else in a similar situation. How is any of that illogical or invalid? Sounded a lot like punishment to me. If not then I misread that. Still, I never twisted or contorted anything... First off, you have not logically countered me at all (and your example is not an example of that since this is the first time that you've even made such a remark...)The closest thing you've had to a good argument was the stance that "since I don't know the details of the situation then I cannot say for sure that the police officer did anything wrong"... but you blew that argument by also taking the position that the police officer was definitely in the right (which is contradictory... if you cannot know if what he did was wrong then you also cannot know that it was right). Now about the restraining not working... possibly. But your argument about the taser not working is completely wrong. Get your facts straight, a taser immobilizes whoever is hit by it due to the way that a taser works. Unless you are implying that this attacker was moving around without the use of his muscles or that he was somehow magically resistant to electricty then that argument itself is invalid (and even if you are implying such nonesense then your argument is invalid on the basis of having false premises) Not true at all. Ever heard of "not guilty by reason of insanity" or "guilty but insane"? If found guilty and insane then the criminal's sentence is entirely different, and rightly so. Then those were either cases where person was high but still in control of his actions (and killing with malice, since "murder" requires malicious intent) or those were bad verdicts (which should have been corrected through the appeals system). I never said our court systems are perfect. What I said is that killing while high (and without malicious intent) is not murder, The could potentially make the person more agressive (which is what happened in this case). I've never denied that and never said that you don't have a point... Using swears and insults if a fallacy in itself. Using obscure abbreviations does not in any way help your argument (how can you make a point when I have no idea what you're even saying?!) Analogy or not, the act was not "malicious". Probably just poor word usage but there is a huge difference, and considering that malice is one of the key factors in distinguishing "murder" from "manslaughter" then making that incorrect statement changes the entire meaning of the statement. These last two things were sort of my point. Police are not always "professional" (although they are obligated to be, considering it's part of their job) and they are human... they can make mistakes, break the law, etc. just as much as anyone else can.Excessive force has happened before. There have also been cases of police not following proper procedure as well as corrupt police. It is extremely common for police to break the law, for example, almost every time I see a cop driving down the highway then he is speeding (even when not in pursuit of anyone). Police are not above the law... if they break the law then they have to be held accountable, legally. If they break proper procedure then they have to be dealt with, job-wise (otherwise the police in general would gain a bad reputation and no one would respect them or take them seriously...)

Yeah, but I mean that "fin" thing. The thing that Riku sometimes used and that the Riku replica used... the one that looks sort of like the Way to Dawn but not really. (looked it up... it's called the Soul Eater...)Oh, and that brings up a point. Riku did use a Keyblade... so why was his replica unable to use one as well? Xion (Roxas's replica) was able to use his Keyblade...

He was not "maliciously" harming anyone. How can he have acted with malice when he was not even aware of what was going on at the time?And I never said that I would not have "ented a physical altercation" if I was in the SAME position. I said that if I was in my CURRENT position (not being a police officer, not having any sort of background / training in restraining violent people or people larger than myself, not having a taser at my disposal, not being able to call for backup, etc.) then I would not have been able to stop him. I've already explained the alternatives. He could have restrained the guy himself, if he couldn't do that then he could have restrained the guy with the help of another officer / officers (since it seems the article indicates more than 1 officer being present at the time), he could have used his taser on the guy, and there's probably other alternatives that I don't even know about since I have never been trained on arresting people who resist arrest or restraining people, etc. I was referring to this: As in, shoot him because I am very upset and I feel that he should be shot. Not shoot him because I am in danger (even though it would kill two birds with one stone...)Moreover, you keep making statements on the premise that shooting and killing the guy was the ONLY option. And you keep saying that he was a threat to the police and practically everyone else around. There is absolutely no indication that that was the case. The attacker was feasting on his victim's face and showed no signs of even attempting to go after a second victim. Even if he was shot in the victim's defense then that is far from "self defense" and "protecting everyone at the scene". I never said anything about the value of anyone's life.And as I have said before, his life was not worth more than his victim's life, more than the police officers's lives, or more than the public's lives. But neither was it worth less. It is not my place to judge the value of anyone's life in the first place (and even if it was, there is absolutely no information in the article that indicates who's lives are worth more or less than others's...) Why does "the value of his life" make a difference anyway? You say that he should be shot, not as punishment, but to "save" the lives of others. So does it really matter if he was evil, worthless to society, your best friend, someone who helps the homeless, a man who has discovered the cure for AIDS or cancer, whatever? If he has to be stopped then he has to be stopped, end of story. The value of his life is completely irrelevant. Yeah, he put himself in that position. That doesn't give anyone the right to kill him. Do people have the right to rape a drunk just because he / she ended up drunk and in the position to be raped? Does anyone have the right to steal money from the wallet of a drunk who has passed out even though it was entirely his fault that he passed out? As I said before, of course he should have been held responsible for his actions while high. That doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want to him simply because he ended up in that position in the first place.And to use your drunk driver example... when is it ever legal to kill a drunk who intends on driving a vehicle, even if that drunk will surely crash and kill several people? Killing someone with no intent on killing the person is not "murder" in the eyes of the law -- it's manslaughter. And as I've already said, manslaughter is not a crime punishable by death.And do you even know what "restrain" means or what a "taser" does? If you restrain the guy then he literally cannot continue the attack because he has been COMPLETELY REMOVED from the victim. If you use a taser on him then he physically cannot move. People don't stop moving when they are shot by a taser simply "because it hurts"... they stop because the electrical current locks up their muscles and they physically CANNOT move. I find it highly unlikely that drugs (or insanity) was not the cause. Even if this man was not high on drugs, the police believed him to be. If they believe he's on drugs and kill him then their actions are no different than if they kill a man who actually is on drugs, regardless of whether or not he actually was. That's like... if I'm taking a multiple choice test and think the answer is B but accidentally circle A and the answer really was A and get the question marked as "correct"... I am still wrong. I just made a lucky mistake...As for the possibility of insanity, I don't know where you're going with that. You do realize that any crime commited by someone who is proven to be insane never results in the death penalty or any jail time whatsoever, but instead the criminal is sent to an asylum where he will no longer be a risk to society and where he can be treated for his illness? Insane people have little or no control over their actions (depending on the severity of their illness) and it is through no fault of their own (unlike being high on drugs where the person chose to get high). Killing his man while he is insane is probably even worse than killing him if he was simply high on drugs... Behind? I'm not the one who cannot form a logical argument, the one who resorts to insults, cursing, constantly using strange abbreviation such as "FFS" (which I have no idea what that even means), the one who does not address my points which you cannot logically counter, or the one who continues to repeat himself over and over again on points which I have already addressed without even offering any argument as to why my statement is wrong.

If you mean the Google Translator... I agree. It's complete garbage. I've seen incredibly bizzare Latin translations generated through that which even I could tell were incorrect (and I don't even know Latin). Plus, it's still in Alpha... no way it can be useful at all if it's not even finished yet and has not have had any of the bugs fixed. As for -ibus... isn't that one of the standard declensions which just about any noun can end in? The word probably still means "merchant" (or "merchants"?) but it's just being used in a different context. (of course, you posted that question over 2 months ago so you have probably figured it out, lol)

The Kingdom Key. There is only one true Keyblade and that is the Kingdom Key. Everything else is a sham. And I like Riku's fin thing... not a Keyblade but it's listed as a Keyblade on the The Keyhole wiki.

One thing that I do not understand about the end (perhaps a plothole) is how erasing the memories of Xion literally erased her entire existence from history. Naminé had a drawing of Xion... even if Naminé's memories of Xion went away then the drawing should still exist. And I'd bet that the Organization had all sorts of notes about Xion, considering that they are the ones who created her. Even if everyone in the Organization forgot all about Xion then the notes should still exist. And we already know that memories do not affect written records of events in Kingdom Hearts... we can see that by the fact that the phrase "Thank Naminé." remained in the journal even after the four of them had lost all memories of Naminé.

I like Xion way more than Naminé... Naminé never even stood up for herself. She spent the first half taking orders from the Organization (if she were smart then she would not have done what they told her to do... the Organization needed her for their plans to succeed and were not likely to have actually killed her...) and then she spent the second half taking orders from DiZ (who was a real jerk, acting like Nobodies had no right to even exist (and since she was a Nobody the she should have taken offense to that...)) But Xion had her flaws as well... to quote Axel, "You two think you can do whatever you want!" and "Everyone thinks they're right!" How do you think that all of this made Axel feel?! And she claimed it was "for the best... for everyone." Ridiculous. Still, at least she was not some mindless person who blindly followed whoever happened to be giving orders like Naminé was.

Here's something that's really weird (if it actually happened, which I doubt): The college I went to had a foreign language requirement -- I believe 3 semesters of a foreign language in order to get a degree in any major falling under "the college of Arts and Sciences". So I had a friend who majored in Computer Science (which falls within "the college of Arts and Sciences") and graduated... however, he was not required to take a foreign language. So I questioned him about it and he said, "the school considers programming languages to be 'foreign'". (anyway, I don't believe that one bit. Most likely there was some sort of exception since he got a "Bachelor's of Science" degree rather than a "Bachelor's of Art" degree (the former being more specific to computer science with less non-computer requirements). If he actually was right about that (the college counting programming languages as "foreign") then they really should make it more clear because tons of people would qualify without taking foreign languages (and not just computer science people either...))

Yeah, I don't understand. Who treats your friend better than she treats you? If you mean your mom treats him better than she treats you then maybe she's just being nice / not being rude. Especially if she is not friends with your friend personally... typically someone in her position treats the guest better than people she actually knows. Think of it the other way... say she was extremely rude and obnoxious to him and did not make him feel welcome at all. Do you think that he'd want to come back? As for her saying, "Go away" when you questioned her... no idea. Was she busy or something? Maybe try asking her again? Or give her some example of what you mean... maybe she just thinks you're being dramatic / exaggerating...

Not telling... but it's really not hard. There's multiple ways of doing it, lol

1. YuYu Hakusho (although I really didn't like the end... and not just the end... that Sensui stuff was boring and the final arc was way too weird, inconsistent with the earlier episodes of the series, and some parts just plain did not make sense...) 2. Soul Eater... ending wasn't all that great and there were a few details which did not make sense but overall it was a good series 3. Ouran High School Host Club... completely different genre (my favourite genre is shounen) but it was funny and quite interesting

The tomato plant is poisonous... just not the fruit (so if people did think the fruit was poisonous then it makes sense...) Did you know that potatoes are related to tomatoes?

firetruck? (strange swear filter... it censors "fuck" but not other common swears like "shit", "ass", "hell", "bitch", "damn", etc.?)

1. Andrew (didn't even attempt to figure that out since I saw the answer in someone else's post...)2. №025 in the Kanto and National Dex 3. "Scorpion" is one of the earliest ancient Egyptian kings from the Old Kingdom (obviously not the answer you were looking for) No idea who "Sub-Zero" is but it sounds like a frozen Batman villain (although that would be Mr. Freeze so it's not that...) 4. I think 12,345,678,901,234,567.8̅9̅0̅1̅2̅3̅4̅5̅6̅7̅... edit - nevermind... incorrect guess. My calculator gets 12,345,678,987,654,300.0 but I'm assuming it's off (since there's no neat pattern at the end of that)... 5. It has no importance whatsoever, but "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" uses all 26 letters of the English alphabet 6. He has some candy bars, 39 wrappers (unless he also ate the wrappers...), probably a stomach ache, possibly a medical bill... 7. I'll pass 8. *looks up in a dictionary* It's a truce 9. No idea (we never learned any 20th century American history in school (besides the Great Depression)... and I'm pretty sure that the US never lost a war prior to any of that) 10. If the "x" is a poorly typed multiplication sign (which is correctly typed as "×" or better yet as "*") then I'd say that the answer is .6

Oh, yeah, I remember those too. I think I have them all... stored away in a box... somewhere. But those could only be obtained by paying extra if I remember correctly...

I don't understand why games are ever released a few days apart or even a few weeks apart in different regions... the games have already been completely translated / localized before even announcing the release date. Why not just release one country's game a few days earlier... or else wait for the other region to finish and then just release it at the same time everywhere (except of course Japan which should get it first because it doesn;t need to be translated...)

Yeah, never read the book but I found a picture of it while searching Google: http://jojofeelings....ati_diamond.jpg That one is really good

Aye, that be true. (I used to work at McDonald's and the toy alone can be typed into the register... it's pretty expensive though (but not as expensive as the whole meal.) That, and I've purchased the toys myself a few times.) Those toys were recalled because a couple little kids died (they put the Poké Ball over their face and created a vacuum, causing them to suffocate). I remember that back when it happened... Burger King stopped the promotion, then offered a free small fries in exchange for each plastic Poké Ball that customers would return, then a few months later they gave out the toys / cards again but with no ball.

I never really "learned"... I just sort of figured it out, lol. Trying to break down words into letter groupings which looked somewhat similar when flipped upsidedown and then trying to draw some sort of intermediate shape which could read as either. That, and before I started making these then there was some guy on a message board I went to who used to make really good ambigrams, so I had a lot of examples to look at / take ideas from.Anyway, the anime / love is here: http://img.photobuck.../love_anime.jpg (not as readable as some that I've made but I think it turned out alright...)As for the Xalaru / Axel and the Ending / Beginning... those will be more difficult but I'll give them a shot.

Yes, if you kill someone while high then you are responsible, but the crime is not the same as planning a murder and killing someone purposefully. Someone who drives while drunk and hits / kills someone is never found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to death over it... instead he is found guilty of manslaughter (which is a lesser crime not punishable by death) along with other felonies such as the act of driving while drunk.Him being high does not excuse him for killing (or attempting to kill) anyone but it does not carry the same weight as if he had purposely killed (or tried killing) the victim. And not stopping after being told to while not being able to comprehend what he is being told to do is not the same as if he had understood the officer and refused to cooperate.

If I was the victim or I was close to the victim then yes, in the moment then maybe I would have wanted to see the attacker dead. That still doesn't make it right to kill him, and that was my point. That is killing him out of revenge, anger, whatever... that is not justice. That is murder in itself.As for "the victim would have died if the attacker was not shot"... I've already addressed that. (To clarify, my point is that if the police had removed the attacker from the victim in any way at all (shooting him and killing him, shooting him with a taser and not killing him, or physically removing him from his victim) then it would have ended the same way for the victim) Yeah, but a wolf cannot be compared to a human life... Umm... no. Telling a guy who is high on drugs with his perception of reality that distorted to stop when he cannot comprehend a word you are saying is the same thing as verbally telling a deaf man to stop and then open firing on him when he does not. Or telling a person who does not understand any English to stop doing something (in English). Even if the police officer had said "STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!!!" then that is not at all fair warning when the guy does not understand a word of it.

And that is why the courts and juries aren't run by the victims / the victim's families.Justice is not about revenge. You don't sentence someone to death simply because not seeing that person dead would make you "very upset". Now consider the attacker's crime. He did not kill anyone (but obviously would have if the police did not show up), either way, attempted murder and assault and drug crimes and whatever else he would have been charged with are not crimes punishable by death. Even if the victim had died then it may not be enough to sentence the attacker to death (as most murderers receive prison time or life in prison rather than the death penalty). And this specific case (if the attacker was high on drugs) may very well have fallen under "manslaughter" (a lesser crime than cold-blooded murder).

I said that the police was wrong UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT HAPPENED AS INDICATED IN THE ARTICLE.As far as proving beyond a reasonable doubt... yeah, that's to find him guilty and punish him for it. I'm not suggesting that he be punished without trial. But the trial cannot even occur if he is never accused of anything in the first place. The prosecution makes up half the trial... if there was no prosecution... no doubt at all that this officer was "in the right", then there would be no trial. You yourself admit that the police are not infallible. If the police can make mistakes and break the law and this appears to be a case of just that, then this should be taken to trial and dealt with. Or at least investigated (and it probably is under investigation... as is any death, even clearly accidental deaths)

And again, I'm saying that FROM THE DETAILS OF THE ARTICLE he did the wrong thing (meaning that if the events went down in any other way then my point does not apply). It is never police protocol to shoot first and ask questions later or to shoot at someone when doing so is not necesary. You saying that he was "right" without knowing the facts most certainly is judging his actions and not "simply giving the officer the benefit of the doubt".From the article: In other words, the police told the attacker to stop... and then when he did not stop then one officer began firing until the attacker died. No indication at all that the police did anything whatsoever before shooting other than tell the guy to stop (which was not going to help if the guy's perception of reality was distorted to the point of eating someone else's flesh... this man was obviously not thinking rationally). Furthermore, the article implies that there was more than one officer present... meaning that it is even less likely a case of "I wouldn't have been able to handle the situation in any other way". If someone were to just give the police officer the benefit of the doubt, fine. But the benefit of the doubt doesn't indicate whether or not the officer was right... no reason to dismiss all suspicion. You, on the other hand, are not doing that at all, but are instead insisting that there is no way that the police can possibly... make a mistake. Or break the law themselves. Basically do no wrong... There is a huge difference between saying that you do not know what happened and saying that the officer WAS in the right.