GhostheadX's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of GhostheadX's arguments, looking across every debate.

Within the bounds of the law, companies should do whatever they have to do to protect their data.. If it's attacking the hackers, then I say go for it.

I think its not realistic.

Its like trying to outsmart someone who's smarter than you.

ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

Fair enough. I agree.

That makes sense.

Yeah, I mean everyone should jailbreak their own phone.

It's Apple's fault that some people can have jailbreaks and not others for adding that damn security to iOS updates.

I agree. I don’t see what the big deal is.

So many times Apple keeps saying it’s unethical to jailbreak because Apple said no.

Everyone should. This whole thing is stupid.

Hey, I'm back everyone.

After thinking this through, I really want to say this:

The right isn't the only side that won't ban someone and supports freedom of speech.

Look at hacktivists.

As an independent, I strongly believe that NOT allowing freedom of speech is FASCIST and STUPID.

You people are crazy.

I only ban if they make a direct threat. I think its better to go out and straight up diss the person in return and not give two shits what people think.

Cuz I'm tech savvy but I don't hit that trigger bro cuz I could care less what you all think of my shit, unless you become an actual threat and then I care.

ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

A few Muslims are terrorists obviously and most terrorists are Muslim, but not the other way around. I agree.

I just think extreme far left or far right are both idiotic. The left is obsessed with gun control and with our corrupt government fuck that.

ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

If you make a rule at school that says "don't use the computer lab during recess" but then one kid use it during that time, then you aren't really enforcing the rule.

Obviously, for examples like the previous one, a few slip ups are ok. But a rule about something serious like having a license to parent and then allowing a slip up for a few million people is not enforcing the rule.

ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

If you don't establish a clear and hard rule, you have no rule.

ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

In moderation it won't which is the same as wormwood. No comclusive studies on marijuana so I don't add it to the list. Only two things are alcohol and wormwood because that's what's confirmed not to kill you if done in moderation.

ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

How do you know its safe in moderation? There are no conclusive studies and nearly anything else that gets you high will kill and addict you.

Wormwood and alcohol are exceptions.

Drugs should be legal because they only affect the person buying and taking the drug. As soon as it affects someone else, that's where I think law enforcement should come in. One example of this is the child.

By then the kid will have grown to love their adopted parents and/or parent just like any other adopted child. Also safer imo based on how I profile people who have kids before 30. Usually sluts and thugs would have a kid at age 22.

It isn't safe but all we know is it gets you high. Can you think of anything else safe that gets you high other than alcohol which in large amounts can be unsafe anyways?

ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

Rationally the child would be put in a foster home. A 24 year old should gain some wisdom before having kids. Not enough life experience. I purposely am not gonna have kids until I am 30 and honestly that's a good age. Most people my age nowadays are not much different from being kids.

A lot of people today that are my age act like teenagers, myself included to some degree. I'm 22, almost 23. I know most of my peers are not ready to have kids yet. Some of them might get away with it.

I tell that to any girlfriend I get when I first meet them.

We should have it and I think someone should have to be 28 years old before they have children. Maybe even 30.

ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

If the drugs are medicine prescribed for a specific condition by a doctor with a license it's great sure.

Obviously I do what my doctor tells me to do.

Morphine is the only illegal substance that would actually be a good debate as doctors use it to treat pain in hospitals and it is FDA approved for such usage if the doctors (not you or me) decide to use it.

A robot was smart enough to be granted Saudi citizenship. content=bufferedce8&utm;medium=social&utm;;campaign=buffer-bi

Suadi Arabia may be Muslim but they are allied with the US (unlike Syria). So please don't call me a stupid liberal. The fact that a robot can be a citizen anywhere is good.

2 points

Which would you rather have: one person with a semiautomatic rifle vs twenty something people with regular rifles, or would you rather have one person with a semiautomatic rifle and twenty something people without guns?

ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

What I meant to say is whether it will happen or if it won't. My bad.

ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

I was talking about the technological singularity. Where do I appear to be talking about the gravitational singularity? What gravitational singularity?

Michael wins.

This isn't rocket science.

Michael has better moves.

Michael was revolutionary.

Michael innovated more.

Fuck Madonna. She's a retarded pop singer and nothing more.

Madonna deserves to die.

She will burn in hell.

Someday, Michael Jackson will come back because he's the one and only Jesus Christ amd he will reign on the throne over Isrsel and basically rule Earth.

Then he will send us all to hell for liking other singers.

I'll probably be forced to be manraped by Hitler for daring to listen to not pick between eminem and ICP.

He's being sarcastic. It fits in with the sarcasm. Either you get it or you don't.

That's the same as asking: are Muslims, Jews, Asians, or Africans inherently racist? No. It's the individual every time.

1 of 41 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]