I was kind of wondering - I don't know if this question has been asked assuming this set has something good in it that makes it worth over the 75$ would you all rather it be limited print as it is guaranteeing that the cards at least maintain there value or there be enough for everybody and the value of the cards to take a dive (but probably raise over time as the product starts to completely sell out.)
I went to the pre-release this weekend and my local lgs had 4 left after ordering 50 (that's what I heard at least) - If I had turned up 5 minutes later I wouldn't have gotten one. I picked up one; I was very tempted to pick up all four but I knew people at my store actually care about the story. I personally loved the art of the card - same reason the other 3 people bought it.
I am personally holding out judgement till we get a more complete view of the story as things are obviously missing from the story, as if this post is truth then the theft was more than 50 copies of the top 4 card in avr.
I have never personally cheated on someone, but I have been in a relationship with someone that was to enter a prearranged marriage. It was impossibly difficult and if I had the option to do it over I would avoid it for her sake and mine. Knowing your developing feelings for someone that is going to get married and theirs nothing you can do about it while hating yourself for breaking someone elses heart behind their back quickly eats you up inside.
I am personally permanently disabled by which I mean it is extremely unlikely I will be able to work again without endangering the safety of the people around me or myself, (severe PTSD, Multiple Auto-Immunes, and about a half dozen other conditions and counting as well as complications from the conditions and the mediation) and I still have to get evaluated by professionals every couple of years - I am pretty sure most people on disability are required to even just as a formality.
I also wonder how many doctors out there are defrauding the system. There are a lot of stories about medicare abuse, but I haven't heard about people abusing disability. How hard would it be for a doctor to run a disability mill? Charging $10000 for documentation which will get someone a lifetime of disability checks seems like a good deal for both the doctor and the patient.
I am sure there are some doctors out there that do this (In states that have fewer safety nets) but I just wanted to weigh in with how much I had to go through to get my benefits. At first we sent out paper work from numerous specialists and doctors as well as documentation from a psychiatrist, a nurse, my councilor, multiple staff members from my school, friends and family, as well as a mental hospital and I was still denied. In order to get them I needed to take a step further and get a lawyer and went to court. The Judge that was presiding only did SSI claims and he really knew what questions and how to catch you off guard to gauge weather or not you needed the benefits. My lawyer after my case had been heard told me a story about a time where the judge charmed his client into telling him that he played poker every weekend and won money often which of course disqualified him from receiving benefits (something about illegal income.) Now I would also like to note that my case more than likely is the exception and not the rule - and your right there are cases of doctors falsifying documentation to get people benefits. Maybe if they handled every case like they did mine more would get caught.
There is another kind abuse that doctors participate in that I know is rampant and that's sending patients to unnecessary tests knowing that medicaid will pay for it. Or breaking down a medical procedure into parts and billing for each part of the procedure. I have personally had to put up with this quite a few times - you go into the dentist and have a tooth filled they charge you for 9 diffrent things and then they charge you for a check up in a few days - and there are few dentist that accept medicare so you have the choice of not getting the rest of your teeth fixed or doing the right thing and not going back to the dentist because someone somewhere has worked hard for that money.
As a rehab resident, one of the things that completely turned me off to the idea of Even considering adult physical medicine part time...
...was the incredibly high percentage of drug-seeking, secondary gain pain behavior, passive aggressive, borderline personality disorder offputting wont let you get a word in edge-wise so forces you to rudely cut them off because they want to make you do it, always "know" their own diagnosis and that diagnosis necessitates hefty narcotics, "allergic to toradol", never ever got injured working on their boat or their car it was always due to their JOB, always obviously exaggerating their pain reactions to get sympathy or drugs while claiming to have "very high pain tolerance", manipulating their co-dependent families and driends, and off putting chronic back pain patients.
This is another problem I have seen first hand - not necessarily with pain patients but there are a decent amount of people who talk their way into unnecessary procedures. Now I am not talking about patients who legitimately need a procedure or who need stronger meds. I am talking about people who use their illnesses as a way to get attention or to get something. I know someone personally who every time someone gets a medical procedure in their faimly their condition suddenly gets a million times worse and they need to have something done asap because they can't stand xyz anymore.
If I'm stable, I can work.
If I work, I no longer get government insurance.
If I no longer have insurance, I can't afford my meds.
If I am not on my meds, I'm far from stable.
This is also probably the biggest issue with SSI and it's not really SSI itself - it's how our insurance system handles pre-existing conditions and the cost of treatment and medication. I know quite a few people that WANT to work, they don't want to take from the government but they know they will be uninsurable and after a little while without their med's they will become unsafe to work.
In closing I think we as a nation need to have a long conversation on both disability and medicare and how benefits need to work. The thing about benefits is that they can be made more efficient while improving the lives of the people on them.
Jeez my father had 72 counts and 8 other and he did 6 months. I suppose that's because he had the best lawyer and the worst prosecutor.
A few things I would like to say from the perspective as a male victim that has been through the court whole process and who knows many males that have been through the process.
The sex of the perp should be considered irreverent - look at it this way the woman was obviously taking advantage of someone with less experience. She has experience and perspective that strictly comes with age, that makes it substantially easier for her to take advantage.
Damage isn't easy to gauge - emotional damage/trauma can also come from having to tell your parent(s) in detail what happened, then the police, then a prosecutor, then a courtroom and while all this is going on a few details will find there way out. My mom had to hide the newspapers before we went to court in the morning - god forbid any of those article hit the internet because they are there forever. And then there as a male is the "Your a guy, your strong - you should have protected yourself" speech from everyone and there mother. And it always seems to stick around - it's been 7 years for me - longer for some of my friends (even the ones that were assaulted by females(especially if you were assaulted by a female...)). Then there is religious people telling you that your dirty (doesn't happen everywhere). and the unrealistic sexual expectations ect ect. And people just look at you diffrent after they find out, even your parents in some cases.
I do personally agree that 40 years seems like a lot and probably should be reduced, it kind of seems like there trying to make a point with heavy sentences. But we have to be careful of saying why she deserves less as going with basis of "he enjoyed it so she deserves less time then the next pedophile" opens up a very slippery slope as (a) it's speculative and (b) if it were a ruling it opens up presidence for the next one to make the same argument - whether the person enjoyed it or not. There are plenty of other arguments you could make for reduced sentencing.
I am fine with a lot of the cards being used, some I am not so ecstatic about. As long as the card isn't stupid broken or requires another player to do something that makes them step out of their comfort zone I think they should be fine - so long as everyone in your playgroup agrees and you are extremely clear to point out what the card does before hand (even if it does nothing) - as a lot of people arent going to know the cards and you wouldn't want to spring like Ashnod's Coupon on someone as it could make things a tad bit awkward.
Everything about SCG is slimy, from "the Magic Shilling Show" to the character of just about everyone prominently involved with them.
Somehow they have these huge events with terrible decks winning routinely, that rarely translates into any echo of success in real events, their endless network of garbage they pawn off on less informed players as worth a subscription fee, inflated single prices, junky exclusive products it just goes on and on.
I would be surprised if I suddenly had perfect knowledge to find they weren't doing several illegal things in their business practices. I certainly would never buy loose packs from them, heck they probably repackage boxes after skimming 20% of the value by box-mapping.
I would also be very surprised to find out that the judges weren't being discouraged from giving normal scrutiny to their "star" players.
I haven't once seen broadcast of a person prominently involved with SCG that struck me as honest, and that's pretty absurd considering the dozens I have seen.
This is pretty defamatory if you don't have the proof to back it up. Accusing a company and judges of possibly committing intentional fraud is not a good idea.
I was wondering if the Yu-Gi-Oh bans are true, I could not find any information on the subject.
The effect of camera's has had an interesting effect on judging as a whole - I found it very interesting on how reluctant they were to use it and how much they had to reiterate that it's not normal operating procedure on the Brain Kibler token thing at PT DKA.
Yes, but you can't control what a person will or will not be offended by, so wouldn't it be best to just not use the word in a context where it may be offensive?
To use your example, when would you ever conceivably need to just say to someone "Hey you're black!"?
I don't know, I think intent plays a factor. I never meant it to upset someone, was just calling it for what it is. It's like calling Someone who is black, black. It depends on the intent. People shouldn't get offended a the word alone, especially if it is being used to define something.
And you're assuming that if we had no people with disabilities we'd all be more evil? I'm not sure if I agree. I understand some of the logic, but I dot think there is causation between living around defective/mutated people and being less aggressive or violent.
Take out the bolded sentence and it means the exact same thing. You had all ready made your point. And in this case it wasn't even the use of the word alone it was the context you chose to put it in. It wasn't being used to define anything. It was used to dehumanize the disabled to drive your point home. Yet again if its so trivial to you then just don't do it. It's as simple as that.
I understand that it offends, and that is unfortunate. I understand that it is hurtful to those who have defects, that is also unfortunate.
However, something being politically incorrect, or something being emotionally upsetting =/= something being FALSE.
They have a defect. If only instead of taking offense, those with defects could admit to themselves they are defected, and take action against their defection...we could move past this.
People with defects should be the first people in line to support genetic science that promises to correct or eliminate these issues from our children, or if possible ourselves.
If it's so trivial to you then why use a term that is going to offend people. Wouldn't it be simpler for you to stop using a term you know offends rather than trying to convince people that the term is warranted because it true? It's kind of hypocritical to say that we are the ones that our holding social progress back when you insist on using a term that offends and won't change enough yourself to not use it.
Do I really have to explain why calling someone defective is offensive.
There is a huge difference between having a defect and being defective. Being defective implies that we are lesser then the average person - which is completely untrue. You can have a genetic issue without being "defective".
You might not understand what it's like - my genes have never been the thing that's hold me back. I can deal with the ungodly amounts of pain, I can deal with the fact that my illness will eventually take my life away. What I can't deal with is people treating me like I am a lesser form of life. Put it this way if you had a child who had a disability would you want people refer to them as a "defective person" - or a solider that has been over to war be called "defective" after getting diagnosed with PTSD because that is a disability as well.
A few moths ago a congressman had to resign after calling disabled people defective.
And you're assuming that if we had no people with disabilities we'd all be more evil? I'm not sure if I agree. I understand some of the logic, but I dot think there is causation between living around defective/mutated people and being less aggressive or violent.
Can we refrain from associating disability to being defective please? It is fairly discriminatory.
It seems I did misread. They haven't implemented it yet, buttheycan identify autism in children... Only a matter of time...
And I beleive none of you can grasp anything, I'm done here. Your worthless ability to read and comprehend has left me unable to convey anything you can understand. Simple fact is, you're too stupid and stubborn to understand what eugenics truly is. It's not about sterilizing, it's about make a better population. But you morons keep saying stupid remarks such as "who determines what's best?" "what about billionaires?" pathetic. You know nothig about science and furthig humankind. Too scared of change to even listen.
Flame infraction.
This response is a cop-out. Typically when someone uses the "your too stupid to understand" card - valid points that they can not deny have been raised. A better population can not be made from revoking peoples breeding rights for arbitrary reasons. Logistically it would be a nightmare and impossible to enforce 7 billion people to take part. It's cold and it lacks compassion and doesn't account for the nuances of human emotion. A "Normal" person wont always fall in love with a "normal" person, and when this occurs your essentially revoking both people's reproductive rights.
As for the arguments you labeled "stupid" they're all valid points. If you pick the wrong person to oversee the project they might not just eliminate genes that have been determined undesirable - they may eliminate genes that they find undesirable. And billionaires would easily be able to get around this process - as I am sure the poor guy that has to sterilize hundreds of innocent people everyday would take a bribe to get out of the line of work. Not only that but they have the means to launch a crusade against a politician or person who would force them to be sterilized.
And not knowing science is a point I must coincide too because I don't know much about this science. But this isn't true to everyone on participating in this thread. For example dcartist is absolutely brilliant, his post on pretty much every subject are well researched and thought out. The mods that I have seen in these debate threads before are ridiculously intelligent. I am sure there are others participating here too that I missed (I am pretty new to the forums).
It's not about sterilizing, it's about make a better population
You can't take the humanity of the problem. Whats now a horrible genetic illness could be in 20 years a very treatable annoyance. By eliminating a person with an illness you eliminate the money and thus the research into that illness and if that illness re-surges later on you could be shooting yourself in the foot.
it is not a question of love. It's as simple as the words say. "Given a choice, would you want your mom to be a TG or not?" Everything else the same, that being the only variable, which would you choose?
EDIT: The question should be more along te lines of, "would you want your mom to have a genetic defect or not?"
And for the 3,737th time, IF and ONLY IF TG was found to be genetic, then would the concept of sterilization hold any weight.... IF it was merely environmental, eugenics would not be even considered.
EDIT 2: For the new guy. Evolution has taken place over thousands of years because of natural selection. With "intelligent" selection, evolution would occur at a much faster rate. And how can you not see that it is extremely likely that a higher percentage of mutated people reproduce now when compared to thousands of years ago. I'm not talking numbers, I'm talking percentages. More people died back then before reproducing, I would assume those with mutations would fall under that category of "people" as well. And you seriously need to read dude. I've said like 1846392647828273774846483 times that IF it was PROVEN to be genetic. IF!! IF!!!!!! IFFFFFF!!! How can you not understand me? www.dictionary.com
Your comment is not only rude but its borderline personal attack. The second edit was not at all needed to express your opinion whatsoever. Just because you think a inheritable treat is a "defect" you don't have the right to revoke other peoples rights. And you don't know anything about me, my brother has Parkinson he can barely walk with out tripping, my mom has Lambert Eaton, and I have several auto Immune disease that will eventually kill me. Should I have been aborted, is my life any less valuable than anyone else? The problem with your argument is that your talking about people not genetic traits.
Even Darwin was against selective breeding in humans "“we neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for contingent benefit with an overwhelming present evil"
2nd, how messed up would it be to raise a child and tell him/her you used to be a woman and that you are not their dad but you're their mom. Given the choice, would you want that in your childhood?
I would be fine with this, my father was a repressed sexual sadist I'd gladly trade him for any good parent period.
Now I have a excellent mother, she raised my brother and I (both of whom have debilitating illnesses) by herself - if she had a diffrent gender identity would I love her any less? No, I would love her the same no matter what.
A parents sexual identity has nothing to do with there parenting skills, and taking away that persons reproductive rights is discrimination. Even if the kid was going to inherit that trait 100% you can't take the person rights away - If you do then that opens the door to revoking other people rights based off of YOUR opinion. Transgenderness isn't a disease or even a bad thing at all - everyone is beautiful and everyone deserves a chance to be happy.
I am personally holding out judgement till we get a more complete view of the story as things are obviously missing from the story, as if this post is truth then the theft was more than 50 copies of the top 4 card in avr.
I am sure there are some doctors out there that do this (In states that have fewer safety nets) but I just wanted to weigh in with how much I had to go through to get my benefits. At first we sent out paper work from numerous specialists and doctors as well as documentation from a psychiatrist, a nurse, my councilor, multiple staff members from my school, friends and family, as well as a mental hospital and I was still denied. In order to get them I needed to take a step further and get a lawyer and went to court. The Judge that was presiding only did SSI claims and he really knew what questions and how to catch you off guard to gauge weather or not you needed the benefits. My lawyer after my case had been heard told me a story about a time where the judge charmed his client into telling him that he played poker every weekend and won money often which of course disqualified him from receiving benefits (something about illegal income.) Now I would also like to note that my case more than likely is the exception and not the rule - and your right there are cases of doctors falsifying documentation to get people benefits. Maybe if they handled every case like they did mine more would get caught.
There is another kind abuse that doctors participate in that I know is rampant and that's sending patients to unnecessary tests knowing that medicaid will pay for it. Or breaking down a medical procedure into parts and billing for each part of the procedure. I have personally had to put up with this quite a few times - you go into the dentist and have a tooth filled they charge you for 9 diffrent things and then they charge you for a check up in a few days - and there are few dentist that accept medicare so you have the choice of not getting the rest of your teeth fixed or doing the right thing and not going back to the dentist because someone somewhere has worked hard for that money.
This is another problem I have seen first hand - not necessarily with pain patients but there are a decent amount of people who talk their way into unnecessary procedures. Now I am not talking about patients who legitimately need a procedure or who need stronger meds. I am talking about people who use their illnesses as a way to get attention or to get something. I know someone personally who every time someone gets a medical procedure in their faimly their condition suddenly gets a million times worse and they need to have something done asap because they can't stand xyz anymore.
This is also probably the biggest issue with SSI and it's not really SSI itself - it's how our insurance system handles pre-existing conditions and the cost of treatment and medication. I know quite a few people that WANT to work, they don't want to take from the government but they know they will be uninsurable and after a little while without their med's they will become unsafe to work.
In closing I think we as a nation need to have a long conversation on both disability and medicare and how benefits need to work. The thing about benefits is that they can be made more efficient while improving the lives of the people on them.
A few things I would like to say from the perspective as a male victim that has been through the court whole process and who knows many males that have been through the process.
The sex of the perp should be considered irreverent - look at it this way the woman was obviously taking advantage of someone with less experience. She has experience and perspective that strictly comes with age, that makes it substantially easier for her to take advantage.
Damage isn't easy to gauge - emotional damage/trauma can also come from having to tell your parent(s) in detail what happened, then the police, then a prosecutor, then a courtroom and while all this is going on a few details will find there way out. My mom had to hide the newspapers before we went to court in the morning - god forbid any of those article hit the internet because they are there forever. And then there as a male is the "Your a guy, your strong - you should have protected yourself" speech from everyone and there mother. And it always seems to stick around - it's been 7 years for me - longer for some of my friends (even the ones that were assaulted by females(especially if you were assaulted by a female...)). Then there is religious people telling you that your dirty (doesn't happen everywhere). and the unrealistic sexual expectations ect ect. And people just look at you diffrent after they find out, even your parents in some cases.
I do personally agree that 40 years seems like a lot and probably should be reduced, it kind of seems like there trying to make a point with heavy sentences. But we have to be careful of saying why she deserves less as going with basis of "he enjoyed it so she deserves less time then the next pedophile" opens up a very slippery slope as (a) it's speculative and (b) if it were a ruling it opens up presidence for the next one to make the same argument - whether the person enjoyed it or not. There are plenty of other arguments you could make for reduced sentencing.
This is pretty defamatory if you don't have the proof to back it up. Accusing a company and judges of possibly committing intentional fraud is not a good idea.
I was wondering if the Yu-Gi-Oh bans are true, I could not find any information on the subject.
The effect of camera's has had an interesting effect on judging as a whole - I found it very interesting on how reluctant they were to use it and how much they had to reiterate that it's not normal operating procedure on the Brain Kibler token thing at PT DKA.
This is exactly what I am trying to say.
Take out the bolded sentence and it means the exact same thing. You had all ready made your point. And in this case it wasn't even the use of the word alone it was the context you chose to put it in. It wasn't being used to define anything. It was used to dehumanize the disabled to drive your point home. Yet again if its so trivial to you then just don't do it. It's as simple as that.
If it's so trivial to you then why use a term that is going to offend people. Wouldn't it be simpler for you to stop using a term you know offends rather than trying to convince people that the term is warranted because it true? It's kind of hypocritical to say that we are the ones that our holding social progress back when you insist on using a term that offends and won't change enough yourself to not use it.
Do I really have to explain why calling someone defective is offensive.
There is a huge difference between having a defect and being defective. Being defective implies that we are lesser then the average person - which is completely untrue. You can have a genetic issue without being "defective".
You might not understand what it's like - my genes have never been the thing that's hold me back. I can deal with the ungodly amounts of pain, I can deal with the fact that my illness will eventually take my life away. What I can't deal with is people treating me like I am a lesser form of life. Put it this way if you had a child who had a disability would you want people refer to them as a "defective person" - or a solider that has been over to war be called "defective" after getting diagnosed with PTSD because that is a disability as well.
A few moths ago a congressman had to resign after calling disabled people defective.
Can we refrain from associating disability to being defective please? It is fairly discriminatory.
This response is a cop-out. Typically when someone uses the "your too stupid to understand" card - valid points that they can not deny have been raised. A better population can not be made from revoking peoples breeding rights for arbitrary reasons. Logistically it would be a nightmare and impossible to enforce 7 billion people to take part. It's cold and it lacks compassion and doesn't account for the nuances of human emotion. A "Normal" person wont always fall in love with a "normal" person, and when this occurs your essentially revoking both people's reproductive rights.
As for the arguments you labeled "stupid" they're all valid points. If you pick the wrong person to oversee the project they might not just eliminate genes that have been determined undesirable - they may eliminate genes that they find undesirable. And billionaires would easily be able to get around this process - as I am sure the poor guy that has to sterilize hundreds of innocent people everyday would take a bribe to get out of the line of work. Not only that but they have the means to launch a crusade against a politician or person who would force them to be sterilized.
And not knowing science is a point I must coincide too because I don't know much about this science. But this isn't true to everyone on participating in this thread. For example dcartist is absolutely brilliant, his post on pretty much every subject are well researched and thought out. The mods that I have seen in these debate threads before are ridiculously intelligent. I am sure there are others participating here too that I missed (I am pretty new to the forums).
You can't take the humanity of the problem. Whats now a horrible genetic illness could be in 20 years a very treatable annoyance. By eliminating a person with an illness you eliminate the money and thus the research into that illness and if that illness re-surges later on you could be shooting yourself in the foot.
Your comment is not only rude but its borderline personal attack. The second edit was not at all needed to express your opinion whatsoever. Just because you think a inheritable treat is a "defect" you don't have the right to revoke other peoples rights. And you don't know anything about me, my brother has Parkinson he can barely walk with out tripping, my mom has Lambert Eaton, and I have several auto Immune disease that will eventually kill me. Should I have been aborted, is my life any less valuable than anyone else? The problem with your argument is that your talking about people not genetic traits.
Even Darwin was against selective breeding in humans "“we neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for contingent benefit with an overwhelming present evil"
I would be fine with this, my father was a repressed sexual sadist I'd gladly trade him for any good parent period.
Now I have a excellent mother, she raised my brother and I (both of whom have debilitating illnesses) by herself - if she had a diffrent gender identity would I love her any less? No, I would love her the same no matter what.
A parents sexual identity has nothing to do with there parenting skills, and taking away that persons reproductive rights is discrimination. Even if the kid was going to inherit that trait 100% you can't take the person rights away - If you do then that opens the door to revoking other people rights based off of YOUR opinion. Transgenderness isn't a disease or even a bad thing at all - everyone is beautiful and everyone deserves a chance to be happy.