"I think he might well have started subtly fucking with a small group of bikers that was actually much larger and more aggressive than he anticipated."
Again, I called what you said "speculation" that he "might have done "X
I certainly can understand and see two sides of most arguments, but I can also see when one side is utter BS based on known facts. There is only one side here, no matter what names the family might have called the bikers, there's no excuse for their behavior in the least, and no "reason" for them to attack.
I ignore the core argument of your post because it makes no sense. you seem to conflagrate understanding their behavior and excusing it. I understand why these babies had a tantrum, I don't agree that's it's acceptable, not even in kindergarten.
You seem to misunderstand my position, it's not that I can't understand the gang of fags, it's that I disagree with their self centered, infantile, 'it's all about me' mindset that lets them get pissed off when someone doesn't allow them to take over public places for their dangerous activity.
People who are not in gangs do NOT have the capacity to act like this. Gangs are fundamentally different creatures from individuals.
I agree, if you asked one of the bikers about you and I, they would undoubtedly side with you, because you SEEM to be excusing and explaining their behavior (even though you continue to say you aren't) by saying it's completely understandable and anyone could be pushed to that level of action, and I'm calling that BS excusing, that's what it sounds like to me and others.
In this case you shared a level of one sided speculation in an attempt to 'explain' why the bikers went ape shit crazy on a family. Attempting to explain how it's justified to them is asinine, you need to explain to them how it's not at all justified. No sane perspective excuses them.
Your words lend themselves to twisting when you continue to argue that they 'might' have a legitimate reason (if only in their own tiny minds) then get upset when someone corrects you that you and they are 100% wrong, and they did not have a legitimate reason. Monkeys 'MIGHT" fly out of my butt to do my bidding, should I get angry with you when you say they won't?
When my high school debate adversary makes ridiculous propositions completely based in supposition and having no base in fact whatsoever, I use it against them. If they want to call their lack of ability to get a point across and have it agreed with 'straw man', they may, it won't win the debate for them.
I disagree with your position that they might have had a 'reason' to go nuts and attack...legitimate or not. If you're adult enough to own and ride a bike, you should be adult enough to ignore someone making a face at you or mouthing something nasty...if that even happened....and no one besides the attackers (and their supporters) are even making that claim (probably because it is not a legitimate reason or excuse). Grow up fags.
it is about good/bad, right/wrong...not just "why/how" for 99% of people.
It is also about fags and the bike curious this time.
You are 100% wrong about justification, it's not a personal thing, it's a simple law thing. What's justified and what's not has been argued by professionals and determined to the millimeter. You seem to be arguing that you can understand how it's justified (to the bikers) to surround and attack a family with a 2 year old...and your stated justification is 'he mouthed off to them'...and that's not a justification for 99.99% of people, and certainly not a legal justification. I understand it may be a reason why idiots without any self control lost their shit, I can only hope they think differently every time they visit their now paralyzed cohort and grow the F up.
I think ethics and morals are things society has agreed upon (for the most part) and are not things you can get away with making up for yourself, unless you live like a hermit with no human contact at all, or don't mind spending your life in solitary (again, like a hermit).

translation: I know you are but what am I.

Libertarianism in the best case is a redundancy. I still remember the first time someone introduced me to the concept of what a Libertarian was. My reaction was "duh, how could anyone possibly be against that?"

Reality however is quite different. Every time we've had an instance of a politician defending the "right" of a corporation to do things everyone knows is harmful to other people, guess what! they're a libertarian!!

Everytime we have an instance of someone complaining about some form of government excess or incompetency and that someone argues we should scrap the whole system, yet has no answer to the question of what would you put in it's place that would be better. Guess what..Libertarian again!

Everyone who seems to think rational self-interest will protect the strong from bullying the weak, again, probably a Libertarian.

Guess what? that conveys the sense that Libertarians = Anarchists or Objectivists/Ayn Rand worshipers.

We only hear about Libertarians when they're bitching about gov't. If the guy in the video is correct and they do agree that Gov't has a role? please elaborate? where IS gov't allowed to step in and intervene and be proactive? If your answer is the Military. BZZZT try again. Every fucking party on this planet agrees that we need a military, the only disagreement is in how much.

So it just does nothing to advance the idea that Libertarians do anything but bitch about the gov't Well get in line...everyone has some grievance with the gov't. Every single party on this planet wants gov't intervention in some things, no intervention in other things. They just disagree in what parts.

So it just makes Libertarians seem redundant. Every single person throughout the political spectrum wants gov't to be no bigger than it needs to be. If you think otherwise, then you need to put on your tinfoil hat.

Even if there was a better way of distinguishing Libertarians apart from the other parties. Guess what. every "ism" on the planet has the problem where not everyone agrees on how things should be done. Ask a 100 libertarians how they think gov't should operate and you'll get 100 different answers, just like if you ask 100 Christians about God, you'll get 100 different answers. Same thing goes with every party.

I'm sure there are some very well intentioned Libertarians out there. Name me someone who doesn't have good intentions? But it's been demonstrated as I mentioned earlier how Libertarianism gets used as an excuse to get away with doing shitty things to people who don't know any better. So tell me how I can tell the difference between the good Libertarians and the "bad" ones

Till then, Libertarianism is a meaningless term.

immediate up. watched it four five times now. You notice something different every time, from someone in the back ground to a link to a scene. Excellent movie

Oh I totally disagree, I remember countless times Top Gear got a car from a manufacturer and they end up totally trashing it on the show. The BMW X6 was reviewed in this very episode I believe and they hated it. And Clarkson is the best at this, he may totally hate the car, totally not endorse it but still say its stupidly fun to drive.

Furthermore Top Gear has some of the best camera crews and editors around, they put alot in the production of each segment. I think they over did it but you watch any of their other stuff and you will see they always try to get the segments a distinct visual style that is different every time.

The magazine itself has more consumer minded reviews, the show I see as a more of a platform for hijinks and really amazing cars like the LFA and Veyron.

>> ^conan:
>> ^jimnms:
When did Top Gear start using cheesy computer graphics?

they always have been massively sponsored and subjective in their messages, but i agree, this is a new dimension of bought motor "journalism". it is so annoyingly obvious that they didn't do that on their own but with help from some guys of course not connected to Lexus cough cough .
top gear is incredibly funny, especially when they break stuff (clarkson dvds etc) but my PR senses start tickling when they praise something.
...and i miss Tiff :´-(

The game does only have 4 hubs (with 4 lvls each) so it can be repetitive, BUT, what the above haven't said, is the game has great AI that makes it so each time you go through the lvls, they are different. The amount of goodies you find, the weapons, enemy places, etc, differs every time or near so.

But the multiplayer is where the REAL fun is at.

No no, it was nothing clever, but I have watched it about 20 times and had never noticed that she is stealing someones clothes to sell them haha. I just adore films that you can see something different every time, even though i'm sure this part was obvious to most

it won't skew the results as long as you make sure you answer differently every time...