search results matching tag: Why you are wrong

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.015 seconds

    Videos (1)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (0)     Comments (25)   

Lawyer Refuses to answer questions, gets arrested

newtboy says...

Perhaps not directly, but you certainly implied it by saying they would arrest you for just not talking.(Edit: I took that as an endorsement)

Again, you simply don't understand rights if you say it's ridiculous, uncalled-for behavior to actually exercise them, which is precisely what she did.

1 1/2 years on duty is not inexperienced or rookie IMO.
EDIT: Nor is being inexperienced or a rookie any excuse for violating civil rights....it's sad that I think that needs to be stated explicitly.

Exercising your legal right to not say a word, because saying any word has PROVEN REPEATEDLY to be enough to cause exactly the kind of trouble you say she's inviting by being silent, is absolutely NOT instigation. It is being patriotic and standing up for your hard won rights. My forefathers actually fought and died to secure those rights, it is my duty to defend them by using them, as is the case with every American citizen. Period. (I am inflexible in this line of thought, as it conforms to everything I was taught to believe about citizenship, patriotism, and respect)

Before they manhandle her, she tells them she's a lawyer and has no duty to speak....enough? If not, why?


You said "I don't think saying "hello, how are you?" and "no, I don't know why you pulled me over." are going to incriminate you...", I explained why you are wrong in that assessment (as did others by pointing you to a video that explains it in detail and much better than I can). There's no question, it's not an opinion, it's historical, verifiable fact. Talking to police can get you in more trouble than remaining silent, but I do agree it's prudent to explain to powertripping ignorant cops what's happening....with a pre-printed card you let them read through your closed window that simply says "Any questioning must be in the presence of my lawyer, and I won't respond, standing on my constitutional right to refuse any self incrimination." or something close to that. I'm usually willing to simply and flatly say " I can't talk to you without my attorney" and they go away, but that's because I'm a pussy.

Khufu said:

what are you talking about? did we watch the same video? Have you read my previous comments? I feel like there a ton of anti-establishment Americans in here that don't even read what I wrote and get all up-in-arms just because of the subject matter.

I never said the cops were right to arrest, or that she should cooperate with an illegal search or detainment. In fact I said the opposite. But, I am saying her ridiculous, uncalled-for behavior upfront exposed her to a much greater chance of being harassed by inexperienced/incompetent cops.

I have no sympathy for people who instigate to seek out conflict just as in my previous example which does apply.

you say "She clearly told them what she was doing", but no, she does the completely unnatural and suspicious silent treatment from the get-go, when pulled over for a routine-appearing traffic stop.

You start your response with "you are wrong". That is a pretty close-minded statement. Especially when you make so many incorrect assumptions and missed so much of what I've already said? I'm not going to assume you are wrong about this encounter because we don't have all the facts about what caused the stop, but I can say you (and a few others here) are getting what I'm saying wrong.

I grew up in the Westboro Baptist Church.

newtboy says...

-..."they" in that sentence is the Catholics and Protestants.....it's your topic. In a general sense, it applies to most religions as individual groups, and the more dogmatic the followers are, the less tolerant of any dissent they become.

I can read. It's in the bible, and never contradicted or eradicated from the religious 'law'...so it's not what I define their beliefs to be, it's what the bible defines their beliefs to be, and if they don't follow it, what in the hell are they 'believing'?

I think you won't provide evidence because you can't. Someone's misinterpretation of the clear instructions, that let you off the hook for following them, means nothing when you have the clear text to read.

Only one hefty book matters in this instance, and it's undeniably clear. If you don't murder infidels, you don't follow the bible's teachings and so must deny it's God's law....making it nothing but a terrible book of fairy tales.

Edit: I think there's a disconnect about disrespect here. Atheists may not respect your beliefs with lip service and placations, but most religions require the complete eradication of differing beliefs. Atheists absolutely respect your right to believe any nonsense you want to, even if we may try to convince you why you're wrong. Religions invariably do not exhibit that base level of respect, how can you possibly claim they are more respectful?
Could it be that atheists are more respectful, enough to engage the 'other', so SEEM more disrespectful because they're up front and honest about their disrespect for beliefs, while religious people might smile but rarely actually engage in discussion/debate for fear of actually having to defend their indefensible beliefs, so just consider them a subhuman demon to be avoided as much as possible and backstabbed at every opportunity because they, let's say, think Saturday is the Sabbath?
I grew up in Texas, I have plenty of experience with 'Christian respect' for the beliefs of others (or lack thereof)....and it's nearly non existent there. I was told more than once that if I don't believe in God or Jesus my opinion didn't matter, and I wasn't welcome there, and deserved death. A few of those respectful Christians tried to beat some Jesus into me....but never one on one, and never successfully.

bcglorf said:

"They murder over tiny details".

Question, who is 'they'? The 'Christians' who ran the crusades? The protestant 'Christians' bombing the English Catholic 'Christians'? The Catholic 'Christians' cleansing the protestant heretics? The current pope of the Catholic church? The folks in your neighbourhood that attend a church sometimes? The people that check off 'christian' on the census?

Your entire exposition gives the distinct impression that you include everyone in the whole group as 'they' and liken them not only the the very worst in the group, you even insist that the worst aren't quite bad enough(Westboro), are as bad as what YOU define their beliefs to be.

Is some lengthy theological dissertation refuting your interpretation of the bible required evidence before you'll accept that calling all christian's murders is unfair? I'm sorry I won't present you that kind of evidence in thread, but I'm quite confident you are as capable as me to quickly google for the likely hundreds of hefty books already dedicated to exactly that...

Last Week Tonight - Ferguson and Police Militarization

lantern53 says...

Zimmerman was doing a service to his community by keeping a watch on it, due to all the burglaries that had been committed in that area. Martin assaulted Zimmerman and had to be shot to keep from at least, a felonious assault on GZ. In your world, only GZ has to restrain himself, not TM.

You make an assumption based on your bias against cops. I made my speculation based on what I've heard of the case and 30 yrs on the job. That is why you are wrong.

dannym3141 said:

In what way was i wrong? I said that you made a bias speculation, and you reply with "Wrong again! I actually made a speculation." - Well, that confirms what i said, sans the word bias, obviously because from your point of view you aren't biased. But your ...colourful language betrays you.

The stand-your-ground nonsense doesn't fly in what i consider (that's MY bias, my opinion) more civilised areas. Zimmerman wanted a fight, chased and got the fight he wanted, got out of his depth and killed a man all in the name of self defence. That is absolutely insane to me, but i respect any people's right to self determination; it's why i don't live somewhere that has laws which allow someone to pursue and kill without repercussions. I think you'll find that the law is contentious at best, and is only seen as a shining beacon of justice by racists. Those of us with less bias on those particular matters see it as a tragedy that could have been avoided if a certain person hadn't willingly pursued someone out of a desperate desire to be some kind of rentacop.

TYT - Israel's devastation of Gaza

newtboy says...

Cue the pro-Israel propagandists to tell you the dozen reasons why you're wrong and it's proper to bomb the schools, hospitals, entire neighborhoods, and shelters full of children to safeguard Israel from the useless rockets.

Why Christians Can Not Honestly Believe in Evolution

shinyblurry says...

>> ^shveddy:
@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.
@shinyblurry - Give me a non-macroevolutionary reason that junk mutations in Cytochrome C just happen follow a clear developing and branching pattern that just happens to coincide perfectly with those independently developed by scores of other disciplines (such as embryology, paleontology and so on) as well as those based on hundreds of other non-coding markers (such as viral DNA insertions and transposons, to name a few).
If you can give me an answer that can account for these coincidences, does so without macroevolution, and indicates that you actually took the time to understand the concepts I listed above, then I'll take the time to write a much more exhaustive response as to why you're wrong.


Hmm, your statement is littered with all sorts of inaccurate information.

Okay, first of all, this idea of "junk dna" is dying a slow death:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

Contrary to your assertion, so-called junk dna is functional. And the idea of viral DNA insertions is completely ruled out when this "random" DNA turns out not to be so random after all, and serving very specific purposes. The idea, created in ignorance, exists mainly as a fudge factor for the evolutionary paradigm. The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection cannot produce enough mutations to account for the millions it needs in the 300,000 generations it took for humans to evolve. It's a lot easier to come up those numbers when 95 percent of the genome is "junk".

Second, molecular and morphological phylogenies are often wildly divergent. This is from an Article in nature magazine subtitled:

"Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology. Can the two ever be reconciled, asks Trisha Gura"

"When biologists talk of the ‘evolution wars’, they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging within systematics. On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the best way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history. . . .

Battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life. Perhaps the most intense are in vertebrate systematics, where molecular biologists are challenging a tradition that relies on studies of fossil skeletons and the bones and soft tissue of living species. . . .

So can the disparities between molecular and morphological trees ever be resolved? Some proponents of the molecular approach claim there is no need. The solution, they say, is to throw out morphology, and accept their version of the truth. “Our method provides the final conclusion about phylogeny,” claims Okada. Shared ancestry means a genetic relationship, the molecular camp argues, so it must be better to analyse DNA and the proteins it encodes, rather than morphological characters that can end up looking similar as a result of convergent evolution in unrelated groups, rather than through common descent. But morphologists respond that convergence can also happen at the molecular level, and note there is a long history of systematists making large claims based on one new form of evidence, only to be proved wrong at a later date"

They are so divergent that two camps have emerged in systematics, each claiming their phylogenies are more accurate. So your claim that Cytochrome C matches "scores" of different phylogenies is patently false, since hardly any of them agree. If want to say that isn't true, please provide the evidence. Note that "scores" means at least 40.

Third, creation theory predicts a hierarchical pattern, so finding one isn't going to falsify creationism or prove common descent. Especially in the case of the phylogeny of Cytochrome C, which has no intermediates or transitionals to be found. You do also realize that a common design can be explained by a common designer? It could simply be the case that Cytochrome C was tailored for different groups according to individual specifications, which then diverged futher by mutations. If your response is that Cytochrome C functions the same way in all life, my response is that the differences could be for coding other proteins.

Before I go any further, I would ask you to support your claims. Show me the specific data you're talking about so I can rebut it.

Why Christians Can Not Honestly Believe in Evolution

shveddy says...

@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.

When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.

Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.

@shinyblurry - Give me a non-macroevolutionary reason that junk mutations in Cytochrome C just happen follow a clear developing and branching pattern that just happens to coincide perfectly with those independently developed by scores of other disciplines (such as embryology, paleontology and so on) as well as those based on hundreds of other non-coding markers (such as viral DNA insertions and transposons, to name a few).

If you can give me an answer that can account for these coincidences, does so without macroevolution, and indicates that you actually took the time to understand the concepts I listed above, then I'll take the time to write a much more exhaustive response as to why you're wrong.

Dennis Ritchie - Father of C and UNIX is Dead

Sylvester_Ink says...

A lot of the features people seem to think would improve C are the features that would completely defeat the purpose of the language. Adding object-oriented features would add overhead (and OO features can be imitated through coding techniques anyway). Adding exception handling adds HUGE overhead. Adding garbage collection, like Java? Ridiculous amount of overhead. Methods for catching dangling references: more overhead. Pretty much anything you do add is going to degrade the language for its specific purpose.

Now if you can afford to handle some of that overhead, you have C++ as an alternative, which was made to introduce some of those extra features, yet still maintain its speed. And this is what many projects do. The Linux kernel needs to be as fast and efficient as possible, and so it uses C. On the other hand, there are desktop environments like KDE that use C++ instead to take advantage of those extra features and aren't as concerned with raw speed considering the environment they run in. And this continues all the way up to higher level languages.

As for insecurities and bugs, there is no reason to blame the language. Even in the hands of a good programmer, any language is a liability. Java is the perfect example, due to its enormous adoption in the early 2000s. There are TONS of Java programs out there that are insecure, buggy, and error-prone, and yet one of the goals of the language was to minimize this. Is it easier to make these mistakes in C? Of course! But it's nonetheless a necessity in the programming world.

Just take a look at the Linux kernel. It's written ENTIRELY in C, and yet it's certainly more stable and secure than the Windows kernel, which is a combination of C and C++. (And go ahead and suggest to Linus Torvalds that it should be switched to C++ or some other "more modern" language. He'll give you a nice 10 page essay on why you're wrong.)

Oh, to add to that, most of the drivers written for your computer are written in C.

The point is that C is most definitely NOT past its prime, and in fact due to the embedded systems industry, it's getting a resurgence.

Stephen Fry on God & Gods

shinyblurry says...

I've used outside sources, sure..have I ever said..Dear Reader, this is why you're wrong *paste*..as if they were my own ideas? Perhaps in debates about evolution I have used quotations or cited websites..but this is about what people believe..I would think an atheist could explain why he is an atheist..or what it means to him..or the distinctions therein..i dont need to run to a website to tell people what i believe or why and really cant be bothered to debate others who do

in any case max stop stalking me..you're starting to become obsessed and it isn't healthy..either come out of the peanut gallery and debate me, or just live with the fact that you've utterly failed to face up so far..em>>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You're addressing my ideas by cutting and pasting from an atheist wikipedia? I've seen so many appeals to outside authority in this thread, it makes me wonder if anyone here has come to any independent conclusions..every time i say anything someone just punches it into google and finds the rebuttal and then their world makes sense again..its just depressing

Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight.
You, shinyblurry...
...are dismissing someone's argument...
...because it was cut and pasted from an online source.
((o.O))
Do you really want us to go back and count how many times you did that exact thing???
I honestly don't think I've ever seen a more brilliant example of hypocrisy.
You need professional help. Seriously. Not kidding about this.

I Remember and I'm Not Voting Republican

Winstonfield_Pennypacker says...

Liberals are freedom-friendly, because they want to increase the number of situations in which every citizen can expect their government to defend their freedom.

I see. So when liberals tell me I can't have salt, trans-fat, tobacco products, plastic grocery bags, develop oil, own property, use my own money on school vouchers, force me to support laws I disagree with, and force states to overturn laws they pass, et al - they are DEFENDING freedom instead of taking it away. This is a fascinating (if unsurprising) peek at the mental landscape of liberals.

This is where the intellectual and philosophical divide exists between conservatives and liberals. Liberals believe that big government and central planning "defend freedom". Conservatives believe that big government and central planning is tyranny. I believe history proves that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Welles "Animal Farm" nails the pattern. People overthrow tyranny with good intentions, and then those who come to power themselves become tyrants - always with good intentions.

The only solution is to strip government of power and forbid them from exercising authority over the people. That's why the Consitution was such a brilliant document. It limited GOVERNMENT - not people. That's also why Barak Obama is such a moron, and why he should never have been let within a million miles of power. He claims to be a constitutional scholar - and yet he has ZERO understanding or respect for the core, basic REASON why it is so brilliant.


This is the little gem our Man-Child president dropped that told me instantly that he was unfit to hold any public office. Period.

"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf."

I do not doubt that you completely agree with this sentiment Netrunner. And that agreement is why you are wrong - and at the most fundamental level why you and those like you are so stridently opposed by over 65% of the nation. People with their heads screwed on right understand perfectly that any person who believes that government should be an organization which "must bring about redistributive change" is anti-American, anti-liberty, and should NEVER be allowed to hold power or push laws their way. EVER.

Penn & Teller: Bullshit! - Soft Drink Tax

NetRunner says...

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, your cognitive dissonance shows every time you make an ad hom attack. This is progress!


Ad hominem would be me saying you're wrong because you smell bad. I explained why you were wrong about what I myself said, and wondered aloud if you were being this obtuse just to annoy me, or if you really were that bad at reading comprehension.

>> ^blankfist:
I'd agree that it's false that "all types of intervention" will raise costs. I never asserted that.


Good! So you agree that single payer is a superior way to reduce cost without compromising quality, right?

>> ^blankfist:
See that? That's affirmation of my statement. So you both agreed and disagreed that government intervention in the medical industry raises costs. Now, who's being obtuse? You're holding two belief systems, NR.


I agreed that in the hypothetical situation you described, it would do the hypothetical thing you described. I didn't agree that the hypothetical situation is an accurate description of the health care system in the US. It's not. In fact, I would go so far as to say that nowhere in the world have they made an unfunded mandate that required treatment of hangnails. Did I not make that clear in my last comment? Do you not understand the difference?

I was trying have a conversation with you about principles and values rather than start an argument over basic facts about what our system is, and why it produces the results we see. Largely because I know you won't accept information from me as being authoritative, except apparently when I agree with you.

Why not respond to what I actually said? Namely, that you can fix the cost problem you raised by taking more aggressive steps on intervention. Also that there may be a moral problem with giving people the market freedom to choose between, say, a religious hospital that self-imposes a "save the poor" mandate that has to charge more to cover those costs, and a mercantile hospital with a more market-friendly "pay-up or die" policy that can charge less for procedures.

joedirt (Member Profile)

BoneRemake says...

In reply to this comment by joedirt:
explain to me why anyone would ever promote this?


/me waits in the bushes to pounce on Ants Down vote.



This reminds me of when we would make Mavis beacon woman say whatever we wanted, when text to voice was first coming out. hahahhahahahah

I don't want to step on toes or flat out prove why you are wrong. I would rather link this and let your own Smart Mind absorbe why I would promote this ( if I wanted to spend the "game tokens" )

I enjoy your avatar, although it doesnt represent your "point of view "
you seem more of a country woodsman from "deliverance" making fat city boys squeel.

lucky760 (Member Profile)

GeeSussFreeK says...

I haven't laughed that sincerely in awhile...thanks! Let the sarcasm be strong with you!

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
>> ^xxovercastxx:

Oh, ya think so? I'm pretty sure the idea is to throw the grenade out of the "structure" and that would be rather difficult if there weren't any holes.
>> ^lucky760:
And thank goodness there was no roof on that structure (likely intentionally)



Perhaps you're unaware because you don't pay attention to mainstream media, but there's this great, new invention called windows. They're basically like big holes in your walls. I know what you're probably thinking: "Those are called doorways, dummy!" I'll tell you why you're wrong. Windows are different from doorways because they usually aren't intended for the passage of persons.

You can learn more about them at WikiPedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window

Grenade throwing fail by Chinese Army rookie

xxovercastxx says...

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Oh, ya think so? I'm pretty sure the idea is to throw the grenade out of the "structure" and that would be rather difficult if there weren't any holes.
>> ^lucky760:
And thank goodness there was no roof on that structure (likely intentionally)


Perhaps you're unaware because you don't pay attention to mainstream media, but there's this great, new invention called windows. They're basically like big holes in your walls. I know what you're probably thinking: "Those are called doorways, dummy!" I'll tell you why you're wrong. Windows are different from doorways because they usually aren't intended for the passage of persons.
You can learn more about them at WikiPedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window


Windows? Yeah, right. Those pictures don't show "windows" but poorly designed doors and I bet you wrote that WP article to spread your conspiracy theory.

Grenade throwing fail by Chinese Army rookie

CheshireSmile says...

>> ^lucky760:

Perhaps you're unaware because you don't pay attention to mainstream media, but there's this great, new invention called windows. They're basically like big holes in your walls. I know what you're probably thinking: "Those are called doorways, dummy!" I'll tell you why you're wrong. Windows are different from doorways because they usually aren't intended for the passage of persons.
You can learn more about them at WikiPedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> xxovercastxx said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/x/xxovercastxx-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">Oh, ya think so? I'm pretty sure the idea is to throw the grenade out of the "structure" and that would be rather difficult if there weren't any holes.
</div></div></div>
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: right; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> lucky760 said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: right; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/l/lucky760-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-top: 1px; right: 52px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">►</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-right: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">And thank goodness there was no roof on that structure (likely intentionally)
</div></div></div>


the wikipedia link is what made this comment. outstanding.

Grenade throwing fail by Chinese Army rookie

lucky760 says...

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Oh, ya think so? I'm pretty sure the idea is to throw the grenade out of the "structure" and that would be rather difficult if there weren't any holes.
>> ^lucky760:
And thank goodness there was no roof on that structure (likely intentionally)



Perhaps you're unaware because you don't pay attention to mainstream media, but there's this great, new invention called windows. They're basically like big holes in your walls. I know what you're probably thinking: "Those are called doorways, dummy!" I'll tell you why you're wrong. Windows are different from doorways because they usually aren't intended for the passage of persons.

You can learn more about them at WikiPedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon