you're ONE cop out of hundreds of thousands.

you honestly think you CAN "represent" cops here? You think you SHOULD?

Who elected/appointed you? Why should we consider you credible in any way? Even if I had zero prior contact with you and my opinion of you was neutral or even the slightest bit positive, you're committing an appeal to authority fallacy. You just defended the notion that a cop can/should lie.

Once again, you have this problem with anecdotal evidence. You are ONE datapoint out of hundreds of thousands. You don't have this magic insight you claim to have. you...can only speak for...yourself. The cop in this video has already spoken for himself.

you have NO authority here. You're just like shinyblurry mindlessly quoting the bible as if it should mean something.

You're impotent

@lantern53

Having been an officer for a long time, long enough to really have seen the entire process of the "militarization" of the police force from its inception to its current state. I'd really like to know your opinion of it. Can you honestly say you feel its appropriate, even needed or justified? The very rare opportunities I've had in the past to ask police officers this question, i find they are very reluctant to give honest and straight answers. Paraphrasing, they tend to fall back on the, "we'd rather have it and not need it" line of thinking. If you do support it, do you truly feel you or the officer utilizing it have received appropriate training?

I remember driving by our local police station (small town Texas) on the way to school and seeing BOTH the giant armored vehicles parked prominently in front with the bold SWAT on the side. Its always been extremely hard for me to accept them or the fact that we as a town of 30k needed a SWAT team to begin with.

@Trancecoach
once again you call me out on an old and dusty post.
this time to accuse me and (@ChaosEngine this time) of being socialists, narcissists AND knowitalls.when i have been very open and honest with you that economics is not my strong suit.

now why would you do that?
was it that we had the audacity to disagree with you?
the thing that tickles me is that i actually agree with a fairly large percentage of what you post.
my issue is with YOU,personally.

i have attempted to speak as humanly as possible with you.
and what have i gotten in return?
ridicule,accusations,harrassment.
a barrage of passive aggressive swipes at my integrity and intellect.

your childish and rather crude attempts to engage with people who have already made it quite clear you have lost their attention due to your own petulance is really what i find most interesting.

your attentions towards me have become more and more rude and spiteful,yet no apology has been forthcoming.

is this because you are unaware of your own callousness?
or that my feelings are irrelevant?
is it because this is this the internet so who cares?
is it possible i offended you in the past,because if that is the case i am totally unaware of any slight i may have directed towards you and will be happy to make amends.

i know that i have made myself quite clear in regards to how your commentary is perceived by me.so there should be no confusion.

i will not apologize for not giving your words the weight that you may possible feel they deserve for the simple fact you have been exposed on multiple occasions plagiarizing the works of others and attempted to pawn them off as your own.

so if that is the reason...well..sorry...but you are responsible for that perception.has nothing to do with me.

i find it interesting you accuse people of using tactics you,yourself use often.

but to me,in my world..it is the WHY of things that i always find most interesting.

why do you continue to keep calling me out when you obviously find me to be an inferior specimen to discuss your passions?

i may find economics moderately interesting but it is most certainly not a passion of mine.

i have never tagged you in a discussion on the Epistemology and theosophy of the radical jesus and subsequent resurrection mythologies.

no apology for rudeness and passive aggressive swipes at my character,yet you consistently tag me in posts to ridicule and berate.

this is what i find most interesting.

or am i being narcissistic?

Pot/potting, not put/putting. That's golf

Also, @BicycleRepairMan don't forget that he plays both left and right handed shots, finishes with a left handed black to increase the difficulty for himself. Practically no one does this, and certainly not at his level. It's widely accepted that O'Sullivan is the best player the game has ever seen, and he'd still be one of the best solely with his left hand.

@A10anis - pub closures are nothing to do with that. Kids aren't even allowed in pubs, so i don't know what on earth you're basing that on. The economic crisis and subsequent austerity issues are the cause of pub closures; that's why it's been in the news recently that the government needs to do more to help pubs out because they're closing at a rapid rate. I can't honestly believe you're suggesting that banning indoor smoking is causing pub closures. Or snooker hall closures, but i'm afraid i don't have any current knowledge to counter that argument as i do with pubs.

Be honest, if you woke up as the opposite sex the first thing you'd do would be pervy. Real pervy

Meh I don't see it as pushing the envelope, if anything I see it as being honest. When you use an inflammatory word in it's proper context especially in a particular setting of say education it shouldn't be an issue. Otherwise you're being dishonest, like not saying Nigger Jim when you read Huck Finn.

I would agree if winning the puzzle meant he won a million, it doesnt, he has to win the puzzle to get the chance to spin for a million on the final wheel if he goes to that round, not hit a bankruptcy, and then solve the final puzzle, its not likely to happen. This would hardly make sense for them to screw him on those grounds.

He botched this one bad, and had it been worse and he said the complete wrong word should they give it to him because its already revealed? If that's the case why not just have them win when the last letter is revealed? No, I'm with them on this, if he had just botched curio, id have said "ehh ok, screwed" but honestly if you cant say corner, you deserve to lose.

Here's the thing. What people are upset about is the fact that the video states "22 Dead" right in the title. Test yourselves out honestly. Would you have watched it if the video had a different title? Something like, "Terror on the Russian roadways! Don't go when the light is Green!!!" I don't know if anyone remembers really the faces of death/red asphalt videos, but there was no "evidence" of death (brains, blood, pools of liquid, dropped health packs...) here.

Although as I heard it, people do get more honest if you use better locks.

I think the point they tried to make was she was acting morally by not lying about her (lack of) faith. That does seem to negate their other argument, that morality only comes from a relationship with Jebus.
I agree, being atheist is not akin to being gay (or should not be considered as such), and so there is no "outing". The implication is that the default position is Christian and to be an honest person you must "out" yourself if you are not in that group. Asinine.
(to be fair, gays probably feel the same about "outing", that it unfairly effectively separates them from the whole of society).

@enoch hi, thanks for replying. You might notice I never said I wasn't hostile, just that my hostility wasn't sparked by mere disagreement, but by being misrepresented, by prejudice.

Try to remember any time in your life when you were the target of prejudice. How did that make you feel? Can you remember how you reacted?

When I was hostile towards people who disagreed with me, it might take some empathy to spot where and how people I argued with were misrepresenting me and my opinions as well.

In your post, I felt that you made many assumptions about me that I know to be false. How would you feel about a complete stranger dispensing advice to you as if they've honestly mistaken you for someone they're familiar with? I'm sure it wouldn't bother you any less if they did so with the best of intentions in their hearts.

I also don't take kindly to the suggestion that I'm incapable of civilized discussion. I'm sure you can appreciate that.

Ads are for squares, sorry if a drunken rant on the doldrums of life in the big city wrinkle yer crinkle, I do other things here as well as foment banal dribble for your perusal. I am at this moment considering your frustration with a human response.

I honestly think you are a mental case as well, though find no time in my current schedule to address the needs of humanity at large. Maybe we could start a blog, together?

Hmm... funny, a couple posts ago, you were arguing against Empiricism... and yet, you can't offer up anything that isn't Empiricist, or suffer from the same logical problems that Empiricism has.

I argued against empiricism being the only route to truth, but I didn't say that you couldn't find any truth through empirical means. You would however have no way to confirm it except through God.

"Truth" isn't a democracy... it doesn't matter how many people do or don't believe in a God. (Though I argue that in this country, the demonization of the non-religious scares people into continuing to go to church, despite their belief... though I say that through self experience, as it's hard to poll about that). The "truth" is that you'll never be able to use Science or Philosophy argue for or against the very abstract idea of whether there is a God or not.

I apologize if you were demonized. I love you and God loves you. It doesn't anger me that you're an atheist; I hope that you come to know who God is, and my heart aches for you, but it's your choice.

There are only two ways you can know truth: Either you are omnipotent or an omnipotent being reveals it to you.

One can, certainly, use logic to determine that the bible is self-contradictory, and biblical scholars (and believers) have determined that not a single book in the bible is the "original"... they've all been modified well after it had already been proclaimed to be the "Word of God". There is utterly no logic as to how a perfect being could have such a shoddy and terrible track record with his followers. It certainly doesn't make sense that he could create wars where his followers kill each other (see any and all European Wars.).

The bible is the most well attested book in ancient history. There is manuscript evidence goes back to the late 1st century, and the manuscripts agree with eachother 99.5 percent of the time. It hasn't been modified.

The bible never claims Christians will be perfect; it really says the opposite. Jesus predicts in Matthew 24 that Christians will fall into a massive apostasy and that there will be many wars, especially in the last days.

The truth is that all science and philosophy points to Christianity being bullshit. And you've already pointed out the holes in the only possible philosophical arguments that could allow you to maintain belief while being truthful to yourself.

Only God can prove Himself to anyone, and faith is a gift from God. What I've pointed out, really, is that atheists have no possible route to the truth.



God works by personal revelation; I couldn't prove He exists to you. You could hopefully see the evidence of His existence working in my life, but it takes His Spirit changing your heart and opening your eyes for you to realize that He is there.

And honestly, if you think that someone praying, and then seeing a piece of Toast with Jesus' image on it, or some mold in their bathroom in HIS image is proof enough to devote your life to that sham... well, you really don't have any sort of a grasp on what philosophy is about.

Philosophy is about a search for the truth, and when I searched for the truth, God revealed Himself to me.

But unlike you, I have truly examined the logic of my situation. I know exactly what would convince me of a super-natural power... it's exactly what would convince me of Aliens or Telepathy. A personal experience that can be independently verified by people I trust, and cannot be explained by hallucinations, slight-of-hand or illusions.

That is ALL it takes. It should be the smallest of things for an omnipotent being... after all, he certainly was never shy with appearances or miracles, according to the bible...

But alas, there remains nothing, no shred of evidence... for Jesus or for Telepathy, or for Aliens.... though I imagine that the Aliens at least have a good reason for not making their presence known.

It's no secret what God can do. If you really wanted to know Him, you would know Him already. The reason people don't come to God is because they don't want to change their life and live for Him. Would you lay down everything in your life to know God? If not, it explains why you don't know Him yet.

Hmm... funny, a couple posts ago, you were arguing against Empiricism... and yet, you can't offer up anything that isn't Empiricist, or suffer from the same logical problems that Empiricism has.

"Truth" isn't a democracy... it doesn't matter how many people do or don't believe in a God. (Though I argue that in this country, the demonization of the non-religious scares people into continuing to go to church, despite their belief... though I say that through self experience, as it's hard to poll about that). The "truth" is that you'll never be able to use Science or Philosophy argue for or against the very abstract idea of whether there is a God or not.

One can, certainly, use logic to determine that the bible is self-contradictory, and biblical scholars (and believers) have determined that not a single book in the bible is the "original"... they've all been modified well after it had already been proclaimed to be the "Word of God". There is utterly no logic as to how a perfect being could have such a shoddy and terrible track record with his followers. It certainly doesn't make sense that he could create wars where his followers kill each other (see any and all European Wars.).

The truth is that all science and philosophy points to Christianity being bullshit. And you've already pointed out the holes in the only possible philosophical arguments that could allow you to maintain belief while being truthful to yourself.


And honestly, if you think that someone praying, and then seeing a piece of Toast with Jesus' image on it, or some mold in their bathroom in HIS image is proof enough to devote your life to that sham... well, you really don't have any sort of a grasp on what philosophy is about.

You have no "proof" but one book written by hundreds of people over hundreds of years, translated into so many different versions... and despite the revisions, it's not possible to get through the first chapter without having MAJOR inconsistencies.

But unlike you, I have truly examined the logic of my situation. I know exactly what would convince me of a super-natural power... it's exactly what would convince me of Aliens or Telepathy. A personal experience that can be independently verified by people I trust, and cannot be explained by hallucinations, slight-of-hand or illusions.

That is ALL it takes. It should be the smallest of things for an omnipotent being... after all, he certainly was never shy with appearances or miracles, according to the bible...

But alas, there remains nothing, no shred of evidence... for Jesus or for Telepathy, or for Aliens.... though I imagine that the Aliens at least have a good reason for not making their presence known.

not acceptably sequitur for you? replace genital surgery with hormone injection and we are now on the same page. I don't honestly think you intend to make a genuine distinction between methods of medical interference