Doctor Who and The Dalek Companion - The Musical has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia on that post.

This point should be made clearer. It is not the fact the dog was attacking the cop, and the cop defending himself. This is about cops arresting an innocent man and murdering his companion, who would have not helped out his best friend if it wasn't for the pieces of shit who should be on the street as homeless men.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

This Salon piece makes a nice companion to this video: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/24/why_shouldnt_david_gregory_be_charged_with_a_crime/

@Jinx

Finished it at the time, nothing special.

It wasn't just the environment copy pasta. The battle mechanics felt considerably stripped down from DA:O, and the reliance on enemy 'waves' didn't help matters. Really left it dumbed down from a strategic point of view. The lack of an isometric camera angle for PC was just the icing on the cake.

Honestly, my main issue was that none of the companion characters with their back stories and own quests were remotely as well developed as in the original. That's what made DA:O unique and worth playing through for hours on end.

Without a canine companion, this looks like it really sucks.

@MilkmanDan

A) "Lord Tywin might rule House Lannister, but Lady Joanna ruled Tywin."

Just paraphrasing, of course, but Joanna was not just Tywin's wife. It is said, she was the only one to ever make him smile and his trusted advisor and companion. Kevan took her spot as Tywin's trusted advisor, but her death left a void, never to be filled again.

So Tyrion didn't just "kill" his wife, his birth marked the end of Tywin's only connection to a life beyond his cold, calculating self.

B) Tywin had plans for his twins, yet the tourney at Harrenhal put an end to that, sort of, leaving him with the Imp as his heir and only bargaining chip for alliances through marriage. Nothing to condemn Tyrion for, but I would assume it turned Tywin even more bitter than he already was.

Most importantly though, I think Tyrion's marriage to Tysha broke the camel's back. In the eyes of Tywin, Lord Tytos, his father, brought shame upon House Lannister by parading his lowborn mistress around Casterly Rock, wearing the garments and jewelry of Tytos' deceased wife, Tywin's mother. To see his own son with a lowborn girl, just like the father he had despised to much... it's a wonder he didn't put Tyrion into an oubliette below the Rock.

I'd say Tywin knows very well that Tyrion is much more like him than Cersei and Jaime could ever be. Tywin's sister Genna had the right of it when she proclaimed Tyrion to truly be his father's son. And as much as he follows Tywin's lead, Kevan must have told him as much as well.

But between Tyrion's marriage to a lowborn girl, his whoring, his loose tongue and fondness of japes and quips, there's too much about him that rubs Tywin the wrong way.

Epic bearded guy would be wearing Nordic Carved Armor. So, yeah, Ebonheart Pact.

I completely agree about Elder Scrolls being a single player experience. For me anyway. I've never enjoyed MMOs and there's no chance that this is going to sway me. About the only thing I'd like added to the TES games is a little more micromanagement of my companions. Dragon Age: Origins got that right.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Prairie Home Companion, Bad Jokes' to 'Prairie Home Companion, Bad Jokes, Woody Harrelson, John C Reilly' - edited by PlayhousePals

OK, this has been posted twice as snuff and removed - then it keeps coming back.

It technically is snuff - even if you don't see the Graphic final impact.
"According to reddit comments this was fatal: Apparently one person died and the other is in critical condition."

http://videosift.com/video/Inflatable-Ball-Ride

"Mr Burakov was still alive when rescuers reached him, a long time later, suffering from a broken neck and spine, however he died on the way to the hospital.

Lucky to survive, his companion Mr Shcherbov was hospitalised with concussion and multiple lacerations to the head and body.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/man-plunges-to-his-death-in-zorbing-accident/story-e6frfq80-1226550275377#ixzz2HV07RfVi
"

Looked like a rottweiler cross. Just another example why dogs initially bred for their ferocity, tenacity, and fighting ability, should be totally banned. Chipping and/or licensing will not work, they will be ignored. And PLEASE don't drag out the old argument that it is the owners fault. Of course, any dog can be made vicious, but these dogs are not bought by owners who want a companion. They have owners who want them for protection, intimidation and status. These dogs are highly strung, impulsive, unpredictable, and give little, if any, warning that they are about to strike. How many adults, children, police, or other dogs, need to be maimed before action is taken? Look at the statistics on the breeds that attack. The latest one shows that guide dog attacks have gone up to 8 a month and the breeds, generally, responsible are fighting dogs. I own a Tamaskan (A big dog derived from sled dog ancestry). There are four bull terriers in my neighborhood and when we pass EVERY one of them strains, snarling and growling to get at him. I pray each time that their leads don't break.

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve to be completely dependent on Him for everything. They relied upon God to make their decisions for them, and tell them what good and evil was. However, because He wanted His creatures to be free to love Him, ie just not just forced to obey Him, He gave them one command. That command was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He told them that in the day they ate of it they would surely die.

What lay in the fruit of that tree for Adam and Eve was their own autonomy. The fruit represented an independence from God to decide on their own what is good and evil. Rather than sitting at Gods feet and learning from Him, they would become a law onto themselves through their own judgment. What eating this fruit did was destroy their innocence forever. It ruined the perfect relationship and fellowship they had with God by turning them into rebels who would make choices apart from God.

So, rather than the law being given for the reasons you are saying, it was given to offer them a choice between obedience to God and personal autonomy. The consequences of breaking that law not only changed their nature but brought sin and death into the world. God draws the line at His standard for goodness, which is perfection. It is a zero tolerance policy for rebellion, not only for moral guidance, but to maintain order in His kingdom.

What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

God created not out of need, but out of the abundance of His love. He regards us as His offspring, not His pets.

Act 17:22-31

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

No, because He laid all of our sin on His Son, who bore the punishment we deserve. It is not a compromise of His integrity so long as the sin has been paid for.

Romans 4:25

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification

You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Before the world began, God knew that He would need to send His Son.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:

http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Because being in the image of God isn't about what God looks like, it is about being imbued with His personal attributes. We resemble Him in our better nature, not our appearance.

What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

I understand what you're saying. You're not going to see the picture before you connect all of the dots. I'll keep supplying you the dots as I am able. I think I explained this particular question to you in more specific detail this time around, as to why the separation occurred.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

He knew before He created that His creation would rebel at some point, and He took the necessary steps to reconcile it back to Himself at the end of time. He didn't screw up, but He did create beings capable of screwing up. To allow for the real possibility of good, He also had to allow for the real possibility of evil.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

Or it's absolutely true.

The only consistent model is that God himself created sin and evil by creating the laws, because if he hadn't created the laws, there would be no sin or evil in the world. This understanding is consistent with your statement A and in spirit with C, if you understand C to mean, "We created evil by breaking his law".

Sorry, I should have clarified this a lot more. When scripture says "the law" what it is reffering to is the Mosaic law that was given at Mt Sinai. This law was given because of sin, and sin was already in the world at that time. This really goes back to the beginning with what I described earlier. What we had in the beginning was not a law, but simply a choice. It was given not to keep us from evil but to give us freedom to choose to obey Gods will. You can't freely obey someone if you don't have a choice not to do it. You can't love someone without the choice not to love. The law came into play after all of this, and that is a whole other discussion.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

>> ^brycewi19:

Two things I haven't been a fan of so far, and they're both intentional choices that Moffat has gone with.
1. The movie poster idea. It doesn't have the same feel as the rest of the series and it removes the sense of serial-ness/continuity to the season.
2. The Ponds are not continuous companions. This is a problem to me. It was revealed in the "Waters of Mars" special that the Doctor MUST have a companion to balance out his power - to "humanize" him, so to speak. Having him simply "check in" on them doesn't feel like it honors this previous internal struggle they worked so hard to show in the Doctor's personality in years past.
I understand that these are choices that Moffat has made, and I tremendously respect him as a writer (see: TinTin and Sherlock), but I just don't like the direction these choices have taken this year so far.


I think they have alluded to the fact that it's not a good thing he's been on his own Amy even says "this is what happens when you travel alone too long", and my best guess is that this will be instrumental in their downfall.

Two things I haven't been a fan of so far, and they're both intentional choices that Moffat has gone with.
1. The movie poster idea. It doesn't have the same feel as the rest of the series and it removes the sense of serial-ness/continuity to the season.
2. The Ponds are not continuous companions. This is a problem to me. It was revealed in the "Waters of Mars" special that the Doctor MUST have a companion to balance out his power - to "humanize" him, so to speak. Having him simply "check in" on them doesn't feel like it honors this previous internal struggle they worked so hard to show in the Doctor's personality in years past.

I understand that these are choices that Moffat has made, and I tremendously respect him as a writer (see: TinTin and Sherlock), but I just don't like the direction these choices have taken this year so far.

@shinyblurry

If you ask why God gave us the concept of right and wrong, could it be that He knew which behaviors were good for us and which were bad? If you ask why God gave us consequences, could it be that God wanted to discourage us from bad behavior?

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

He gave them an honest choice and it was their choice that created sin. What God allowed is the condition to exist where sin was possible.

He created us and our conditions such that 100% of us (or 100% minus two, I suppose) would break those rules. It’s in our nature to break God’s rules. God made both our nature and his rules. God’s fault.

Why did God allow us to sin? Because if He didn't, we would be nothing more than robots.

What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

He must punish all sin...God cannot compromise His integrity to forgive us…

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

[me:]Why? Surely God decided that a sinless person would be required to act as a bridge? Why didn't God just make us closer to begin with? Or why didn't he just come on over himself? Couldn't he? Why did he determine that to disobey his commands would create distance?

[you:]God sent His Son over on His behalf, remember? Fellowship with God is a privilege, and to the extent that we abuse it, that is the extent to which He will remove Himself from it.

You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:
http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Why why why why why why? First, read some of the things I've said and connect the dots.

Because because because because because because your dots don’t connect. When I ask about a connection between two dots, you cite another totally new dot from scripture. When I ask about how to connect that dot, you assert another one with a rhetorical question. When I ask about that dot, you get frustrated and tell me to go study theology. Except within the same comment before you’ve had a chance to answer, I don’t believe I’m asking you the same question again and again. I’m asking you to justify the new information you’re giving me. If it’s frustrating for you, imagine how hard it is for me to accept it.

[me:]And why did they become corrupt? That must have been one of God's rules, that when you sin the first time, you corrupt your DNA (or whatever) for all generations to follow. He created that consequence as much as he created the physical rules of the universe. Why?

[you:]They lost their innocence when they disobeyed God and ate of the fruit. Their nature fundamentally changed as a consequence. Also, death came into the world. The human experience went from paradise to paradise lost, and humans had to fend for themselves. The corruption was a confluence of all of these different factors.

You missed the question. What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.