Welcome to Open Carnage

A resource for gamers and technology enthusiasts, with unique means of rewarding content creation and support. Have a wander to see why we're worth the time!


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Pandora

Extra Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Contributed
    $30 (US) to Open Carnage
  1. Likewise. It aired on a current affair program here, well dramatised and my mum was glued to the TV. She was like you play games, then watched it so intently. I kinda laughed lol. Either way online threats aren't cool but the anonymity of the internet is well known for behaviour otherwise not acceptable in IRL.
  2. Happy Birthday =)
  3. You know what's really the problem? People can't fight fair or have their pride dented, someone always wants to "own" or dominate someone else and win (monopoly much?) This happens regardless of which gender and it's wrong. The moment you get a non-life threatening slap (not that it's right), an over reaction to the police/emergency services to make example of a crying victory of female/male oppression is just as lame. However, if his/her life was in immediate danger and there is a strong history of abuse then that's another story to call in. Given that the feminists of yester-era were fighting for basic human rights to even co-exist, the right to vote or have a place in the workforce, this is not something to mock or regurgitate a limiting world view nor is it an excuse for the present generation of females to hate every man, situation or thing alive.... they are pretty much two sides of the same coin that feed the same hatred towards each other. If your instant reaction to everything is a man or woman's right movement then a healthy relationship is never going to work and you probably are best not to reproduce. There's a fine line between innocent playful fighting and then there's going down the abuse territory, work within something that's acceptable. The moment your reaction is overkill, you're not playing fair and most likely will end up forever alone because no one was put on this planet to constantly cater for the other.
  4. =( I'm glad you're okay x
  5. Well that's an expensive Monopoly game and a great use of emergency services. I hope they've both learnt their lesson. I don't know who's more embarassing considering that they are now both known as the domestic violence monopoly couple in the 911 hall of shame.
  6. This is how I'll always remember it:
  7. Happy Birthday TCK.
  8. Yes a convicted person has a chance of repeal but not when they're dead (capital punishment) and the period of time where evidence may resurface to prove their innocence is unknown (e.g. the man in this article). This unknown, is a chance for redemption which is the main point of the counter argument. Yes we agree it was not done as to how it's set out in US Law but most importantly, it was not a just outcome. Question the system and improve it so that there is little chance for power and corruption to be easily swept under the carpet (see my previous paragraph as to an avenue to do this). Sometimes a philosophical approach is required, considering that is primarily how modern law and justice has come about. Asking questions, finding another way instead of accepting what is and arguing about what is, quoting a textbook consitution will not always provide all the answers, hence why laws and policy are reformed accordingly using example of cases such as these. By suggesting there is no way to do this because everyone is corrupt and power hungry is an assumption that does not allow a chance for a justice system to work and is incorrect. Most of your points align to what was said by my last post, so I agree that corruption and giving someone too much power is bad. However, I disagree that the system is "fine" when there are people getting away with the above. This isn't about what's better but what's right. Additionally, there might be room for adjustment in regards to prison overcrowding for petty crime in America: http://www.alec.org/initiatives/prison-overcrowding/ http://newamericamedia.org/2014/09/new-study-prop-47-would-help-california-address-overcrowded-prisons.php * I'm not trying to be ridiculous but given the ethnicity of the accused and the circumstantal evidence (a little white kid who thought he saw something) that was then used to place him in jail and potentially capitally punished, I find it highly probable for that period of American Law and History that this would be the circumstance (there's whole books about it and degrees specialising in it- See 'The Racial Hoax' Page 284): http://www33.homepage.villanova.edu/kelly.welch/Documents/Racial%20Typification%20Article%202007.pdf I think I'll leave it at that.
  9. In context of this article of an innocent man being released and potentially acquited for a murder he did not commit (as opposed to one that is guilty of murder): I think it's hard to prove your innocence or get a fair trial, re-trial or acquital for a crime you didn't do when you're dead =\ because the "justice" system failed you at a certain point of time. Being alive and doing time is a chance for redemption, especially for those who slip through the cracks (yes at the tax payers expense.... if you were doing time and were wrongfully imprisioned, wouldn't you want the chance for redemeption and to clear your name for yourself and your familys'?). Is there even a price for redemption? This man deserves redemption, who are we to say he doesn't? If we all had an eye for an eye mentality (bar the obvious immediate self defence), what makes us any better than those we detest for crimes done to us and our loved ones? What makes sharia law any more extreme or morally detestable if we intentionally and ignorantly punish a potentially innocent man by death? I find this distasteful. Death is final, the reality is that it won't change anything that has been done or will be done, it may bring a temporary satistifaction or relief but will always be a very counter-productive sense of justice. So what's needed, however "idealistic", is to strive to improve the justice system so people aren't doing time based on circumstanial evidence and bias, if you're thinking about reducing costs and prison over crowding, rethink punishment methologies for petty crime (remember they once also locked up people for stealing a loaf of bread) and keep* the ones who truly need to be locked up, incarcerated. With improving forensic technology, there is a higher chance for cases where circumstantial eye witness accounts and cold cases can be solved/re-investigated, as evidence can now be properly analysed and prove a person innocent or guilty. Keywords I see in this article: 1975, black man, money, murder. And yes, giving false evidence/fradulent information should be punishable as based on intent and the severity of the extent of their actions (and so should racial profiling of potential suspects based on circumstantial evidence in the court of law). If this innocent man faced the death penalty and the evidence surfaced as it did of this once little boy who lied, would you wish death upon the man he is today because he caused this extreme injustice? Can you understand the absurdity.... Seeing the world through unwarranted cynisim is just as bad as looking though absent minded rose-coloured glasses. Directly unrelated but still somewhat comparable, if anyone hasn't seen the Green Mile, it's a good movie to watch and the tv series Cold Case.
  10. I was randomly inspired. You are my muse. ______________________________________________________________________ General comment on article: I think the key part of the article about temperatures rising unaturally, pre-summer, is what exactly is of concern. Secondary effects are seen in the ecosystem such as dead native bats falling/raining off trees (irregardless if the bats are culled in situations where they are considered vermin or death from natural causes).. this is not a normal occurence this early on. Semantics or not, the article quotes an animal wildlife rescuer which is in character of someone with sentiment to her job and of course, a little emotional, but who wouldn't want to take care of animals in need if they have an opportunity or saw a need to do so. These are native flying foxes and when you destroy their natural habitat (remember the cartoon Blinky Bill?), they will migrate to man-made botantical gardens for which they can find survival/food (to humans this is seen as pests that need to be culled). They may not be entirely cute and cuddly as a koala but they are definitely a species worth existing (or at least understanding the nature of an ecosystem for sustainability purposes).
  11. http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-humans-animals I think we found a new debate topic.