Interesting. But I have to say that I find the idea of a "privacy-minded" group of individuals who hold the belief that "information should be free" to be extremely hypocritical. What they -should- say is, "we believe that other people's information should be freely available to us".

IOW, somewhat typical 4chan attitudes.

Oh yeah -- non-Thais generally don't have to worry about the "attitude adjustment" camps etc. Deportations are a possibility, but like you said you have to be really pushing it.

A man is susceptible to the attitudes of the group he identifies himself with. I wouldn't consider him a soldier after long. There is an indoctrination in both groups. I just believe the military has a focus that's easier to avoid the mentality I ascribe to police.

The us v. them mentality makes the bad cops worse, makes most cops protect the bad, and makes the exceedingly good somewhat rare.

I would argue your military dictatorships are, in truth, just REALLY well equipped police forces, not actual militaries. Police have always had an us vs them attitude towards "civilians". The military has always felt it was a protector.

That's why I'd trust a soldier before the "law".

I understand that you (Bob) and Donald agree that what Obama did was wrong. And so it was doubly wrong of "Liberals" to have supported him so blindly. That is a legitimate though biased point of view which I would be foolish to argue against for it is your belief.

In that case please enligten us about what are you two aiming to achieve by throwing excrement in the general direction of a fan?

What is the plan? What can the US propose that Iran IS going to ratify? Will Iran (and North Korea and China and, come to think of it, any country) have any interest to make a new deal with the USofA, if they either brag and throw insults or sulk and walk away?

Complying (for the most part) voluntarily was a resonable step in the right direction for both Iran and the US, how does trashing this agreement help? I mean how does it help anyone except Donald in the short term by pleasing fanboys?

Donald usually avoids stating aims (or makes multiple confusing proclamations) and then claims any outcome as a victory. What is a victory in your scenario - regime overthrow? change of Iranian public attitudes towards "America"? a more friendly "supreme leader"? a different ruling moslem faction? or maybe fluctuating oil prices? restructuring of oil field ownership?

Obama limited this to nuclear weapons, seems like a good idea in retrospect, frankly.

Taking you seriously for a moment, I've never understood the armed militia/tyrannical government idea. Personally, I'd trust a soldier long before I'd trust a corporation or a judge, and never a lawyer. It's not the army people need to fear, they are us, it's the wealthy whose outlooks are alien.

Former friends of mine had a remarkable business surge that took them from lower middle class WELL into the 1%. The diminished empathy that came along with it is why they're former friends, not current ones. It was gross how their attitudes and beliefs changed.

A little bit of "hold my beer" attitude in it too.

In a perfect world, yes, but in reality, no.
Police do not have to tell the truth, and if a lie gets them the upper hand, they'll often lie. Asking them to explain your rights, especially after annoying them by being obstinate and repeating to them that you know your rights, is just dumb imo. They have no obligation to teach you or to be honest about them and every incentive not to.....although it would be nice if they did.

Edit: asking for a lengthy explanation after being told 'any answer besides"yes" is considered refusal' is a point where you will be penalized for asking what your rights are....white, black, or purple.

Explain how it's ok to administer a test at any time but this time is harassment because he failed them, please, because that's contradictory.

He parked on the freeway causing suspicion,
admitted to drinking and driving requiring a field test,
didn't follow directions so failed the field test,
then obstinately repeated that with the breathalyzer by not answering yes and taking it. (After being told anything but yes legally means no).
Please, what's harassment there?....because there's definitely something more imo.

Remove race from the equation, and it's a good arrest. Adding race in does nothing to negate that imo.


Edit: I was a white punk with a long Mohawk. I got harassed far worse than this repeatedly, including being thrown to the ground at gunpoint because an officer read my plate wrong and accused me of being a car thief. Attitude usually has far more to do with the outcome than anything else in my experience. When I was polite and followed instructions I almost always walked, even when in the wrong. When I argued, I got slapped hard, like a vandalism charge for a 4" chalk line on a sidewalk or 2 hours of having my car searched in front of my friends house.

If I'm misunderstanding and you aren't claiming this was a dwb arrest, apologies. That's the part I'm debating, because it seems wrong.

"A twin study of self-reported psychopathic personality traits"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886902001848

Perhaps the above is more to the point. Similar twin study showing identical twins having similarly significant genetic component to psychopathy as the prior studies show for sexual orientation.

Should we be similarly upset at people assigning morality to psychopathic behaviours?

"Genetic and Environmental Influences on Religious Interests, Attitudes, and Values: A Study of Twins Reared Apart and Together"
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40062599?seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents

Religiosity shows the same thing, strong correlations for identical twins, raised apart from one another, and much weaker correlations for non-identical twins also raised apart.

If Tom Cruise claims his belief in Scientology is a birth right and how dare we judge him, is he really backed by the science?

Where I am coming from, is insisting that for all the factors involved in human decision and behaviours, I still want to conduct ourselves as though free will exists.

More importantly, the freedom to discriminate against people based upon their behaviours must be defended as strongly as the right to discriminate based upon purely in born, unchangeable attributes like race, gender and ethnicity must be opposed.

I'm glad they went this route.

There's a certain attitude that says that only cute, indie games about children with big heads lost in a scary world can be art (shamelessly stole that from Zero Punctuation), but big-budget action games are disposable nonsense.

And there certainly ARE plenty of good, clever, indie games and insanely dumb, tone-deaf, "press f to pay respects" AAA games.

But you can have violence be a part of your story and still be a good story. Hell, your story can be about violence and what it does to you. Spec Ops: The Line is a great example of this.

It's disingenuous to say that video games are nothing but sadistic murder simulators, but it would be equally disingenuous to pretend they're all sweetness and light.

The first God of War is as brutal and sadistic as they come and it's a great game. "Hatred" sets out to be the most brutal and sadistic game ever but it's terrible.

There's something to be said about attitude. Don't act like prey, don't be treated as prey.

Also, all the cameras and people lead me to believe this is a for-profit area. The wolves are probably well fed.

"I don't like your attitude."

A totally ignorant comment.

Made even more ignorant by a woman standing on two legs to a man confined to a wheelchair.

Not a fan of his delivery of his final line. Completely understand why he would say something to her.

Its persistence also speaks volumes of America's attitude towards the RotW, no?

fake news!

but it's persistence does speak to general attitude of the rest of the world to America