Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Eridal

  • Rank
    Veteran Member


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram
  • Global 5/SLOAN
  • Astrology Sign
  • Personal DNA
    Reserved Leader


  • Location
  • Interests
    Electronics, Shogi, Anime, and Sci-fi/Fantasy
  • Personal Text
    Heaven's Wrath is but a shadow compared to Mankind's will to destroy life.
  1. Thank you.

  2. You're right that most burglars are not primarily set out to physically harm someone but it does happen. And the problem is going into that kind of situation you have no way of knowing prior to the altercation which way it will go whether they will run from you or attack. That's why I personally don't have a problem with someone using whatever force they deem necessary to protect themselves even if that unfortunately includes the death of another human being. I would hope at least no one believes that she did the right thing. Simply put she is a moron and I'm glad that she had her permit revoked for several years as people like her should not be carrying guns. What really got me was that the takeaway from this incident to her was not to help people instead of don't recklessly endanger the lives of others in a public space by firing a gun without even knowing the situation.
  3. While I don't like quoting Wikipedia much I'm too lazy to do otherwise right now. But hey if you have any cases that contradict this then go ahead and post them because all you've done here is wave your hands around screaming while saying that you're right and everyone is stupid but you.
  4. You know what I used Google like you said Doggzilla, it seems that you're just wrong. As eagleseven said the current limitations are based on the decision in Brandendburg v Ohio which is narrower in scope than the decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. And yes being a massive douchebag, as you so put it, is protected by the first amendment. And no you can't "beat someone's ass" for being a douchebag, though it happens all the time.
  5. You visited my profile!

    I am officially ecstatic.

  6. Her belief is protected but she does not have the right to impose those beliefs on others through her public office. Her signature on those marriage licenses is not saying she personally supports anything only that the couple meet the requirements for marriage in her county. So except to enforce her beliefs on others she has no right to refuse to do her job. She can protest gay marriage all she wants in her private time she just can't use her office as a platform for spreading the word of god. To do so is to favour one religious belief over another something the government is prohibited from doing.
  7. The US is not a pure democracy and that is a good thing. As for use of manipulation/coercion to force compliance with a court order I have no problem with that and it has nothing to do with democracy but with the rule of law. How else are you to force compliance with a law? Or would you prefer that people just ignore the laws of the nation without consequence.
  8. She is elected true, but not as a representative of the community but to perform a specific function. This means their opinions mean nothing in this case for this elected official. If the population of Rowan county has a problem with gay marriage it would their representatives in the state and federal legislatures who dealt with that not a court clerk. Of course those representatives can do little since it would require a constitutional amendment at this point to change the current ruling. She clearly violated her oath of office and refused to do the duties required by her office and should be impeached by the state legislature if she continues to be non-compliant. It is not likely they will do so but they should not because they support or do not support gay marriage but because they should not accept a clerk refusing to do her job and violating the rights of others because of personal issues. If they chose not to do this then it will remain a problem for the courts to solve since the option of doing nothing isn't currently on the table. There are other ways to resolve this which do not include her being impeached that again is up to the state legislature to deal with as they can remove the requirement that her name appears on the marriage license. Not my favorite option but it would solve the immediate problem. The other option is the one taken which is for the judge to imprison her till she complies with the order or allows her deputies to do so in her stead. This is what happened and now she has been released from jail on the condition that she not interfere with the issuing of marriage licenses from this point on. It is still to be seen if she will follow this directive. I personally am for this option as it sets a great precedent that elected officials cannot violate their oath of office and refuse to perform their duties without consequences.
  9. "Hotness" doesn't factor into my decision to procreate with someone, partially because I have no desire to do so in the first place. Personality is far more important in both dating and procreation if I'm not happy being with them on a daily basis then no amount of "hotness" will make up for that.
  10. The more I read about this woman the more I'm starting to dislike her. Not only will she not issue the licenses she is actively trying block her deputies from doing so. Add to this she isn't resigning because she sees herself as some kind of martyr and is saying things like "And if I left, resigned or chose to retire, I would have no voice for God’s word". You work in a public office that is not the place to be teaching god's word it is a place to perform a public duty one you swore to do. Get over yourself and follow the law or else get out of the way so others can take your place and perform the duties of the office you currently hold.
  11. And in the latest news she just went to jail for contempt of court. Sorry too say but she deserves it. If she cannot perform her job properly then she should have stepped down rather than defy a court order.
  12. Just because atrocities were committed at a higher rate in the past does not mean it was acceptable then or now. Rape is one of the worst things that can happen to a person and is a great thing that society is beginning to recognize that both legally and socially. It is such a big deal because it goes against every principle of civilized society and commonly causes significant mental damage for an extended period of time. It has no place in modern society and the laws and attitudes of the people should reflect that no matter how common or acceptable it was in the past.
  13. Generally would lose interest especially since my interest in dating is already very low.
  14. First scenario doesn't deal with the reality of hacked guns or legacy guns. Both will exist and will be prevalent in the criminal world. Nothing you do will prevent this from happening in the long run look at movie and music industries for great examples of this type of technology failing miserably in the long run. Second scenario as you pointed out yourself doesn't solve the problem you're trying to solve and there is not a solution to the problem except to restrict the guns from firing on any human target. But then that prevent its usage for self defense. This would be difficult but not impossible to do but would be a significant expense added to the gun. You wouldn't need to breach any facility to hack the gun. Physical access to the circuitry gives you a huge advantage in cracking the system. And it only takes one time to open the floodgates to allow hacking of all guns and once the data is in the wild you'll never get rid of it. You severely underestimate the ingenuity of both hardware and software hackers. Many will work on it simply for challenge it presents and one or more will ultimately succeed. Not likely unless the trade-in was forced and even then you won't deal with the large number of illegal guns in the country already which would not be traded in or upgraded. Those would be immune to any control measures you put in place for the smart guns. And with a trade-in system you would have to have enough guns of the correct type available in order to replace the current ones. There are an estimated 310 million guns in the US. That's a lot of upgrades/trade-ins... There are several reasons why not to use this for gun control. The main reason is that it would not be that effective in preventing murders by the use of a firearm. This would be restrictive only for those who own the gun legally and already not likely to commit a crime with them and the system you'd need in place to prevent killing family members with a smart gun would be easy to get around by either not registering the family members as non-targets or deregistering them prior to the shooting. Another major reason not to do this is simply a cost reason. The cost to maintain such a system would be very high not the mention very resource intensive. And it's not just the cost of the validation system it would also be an enormous cost to trade-in or upgrade the current stockpile of weapons.