what an odd dynamic here on the sift in regards to lantern.

many here (myself included) have seemed to put the mantle of responsibility squarely on lanterns shoulders,as if he represented ALL police....everywhere.

this is not only patently false,it is very unfair.

BUT....

and @lantern53 this is very important you understand this very crucial,pivotal point:

the outrage you see here playing out on the sift in regards to police abuse of power and authority (oftimes directed AT you) comes directly from a perspective on how we all view HOW a true police officer should behave.

we feel (i dont mean to speak for everyone..but im going to anyways) that those in a position of power and authority have to be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us.

why?

because they are in a position of power and authority!!!!

and to abuse that public trust.
be it by the use of violence or intimidation,is the greatest of all betrayals.

so when we see a cop abusing his powers,in whatever capacity,we become outraged and angered.
justifiably so in my opinion.

i know you like to poke the hornets nest from time to time and it gives you the giggles.
ok..thats fair enough...
but stop defending the indefensible.

as a police officer you should be the first one condemning those cops who have obviously stepped over the line.
i am willing to be that you have done just that in your time on the force.most cops i know do it that way.
police policing themselves in a roundabout way.

i have full confidence you are good at what you do and have built a skin so thick not much really phases you anymore,but stop defending those cops that are NOT good cops...they are a cancer on your institution and they make those of you who ARE good at what you do treated with suspicion and wariness.

so listen to those here who are telling you how they feel about the bad cops.these are not criticizing you in particular,so dont feel you have to defend every bad cop out there.

so just as you do not represent every cop on the planet,dont allow those bad cops define you.

we are counting on you to be better.

/rant off

You can't seem to understand that it is BECAUSE you defend these indefensible cops that I (and others) paint you (and other officers) as corrupt.

EDIT: Calling you 'predictable' isn't 'juvenile name calling' if it's properly descriptive, and it TOTALLY was, I predicted you supporting the cops and/or blaming the innocent victims, and that's exactly what you did.

Please, do not be hate-baited and lower yourself to their level.
(Red newbie P's = Propaganda)

Reasoning and facts are secondary to anyone who defends this kind of atrocity.

Hey Red P's, repeat after me...
TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE, TOTALLY INDEFENSIBLE
...and that's from your closest ally.

I can think of a few reasons. First one is they just don't see it because they're in a hurry, chatting on their cell phone, or preoccupied. Doesn't matter how clearly it's marked, sometimes it's just people with really strong blinders on. Second is because they don't give a fuck about the rules or about others. Third is they're just going to be a second and there's other ones available so it's just a little sin, kind of like speeding, and everyone else does it, right?. (And confirming for the record that I dislike people that think this way. It's an analysis, not a defense. This is indefensible)

Key point of this video is that the owners of the cars don't know that the spraypaint is water-soluble. If I had mistakenly and unintentionally parked in a handicapped spot and I saw someone spraypainting my car, I'd be furious too. Call the cops, take my license and report me, but don't make me pay for a new paint job.

P.S. Loved the woman telling her guy off "I told you not to park here! I told you not to park here!" Guess he was not one of the 'unintentional' list.

You have completely misunderstood the point and have mistaken the method for interpreting data with the data itself. Yes, of course context matters, but none of your examples presents an exception to rationalism (PDF) in any way. Using reason does not pre-determine the conclusion prior to the interpretation of the data. Just the opposite, rational deductive reasoning enables one to interpret the data from an unbiased position, in contrast to the hermeneutics which you seem to be employing. Without a consistent position based on unchanging principles, the data is either consciously or unconsciously filtered through your a prior "preference" or bias in arbitrary and/or indefensible (rationally-speaking) ways.

And IP is no exception (PDF).

Firstly i'd like to say that it's clear to me you're not interested in discussing this, but rather somehow interested in some sort of conflict. I'm not, and i spent a good while thinking about my post before making it; your suggestion that i didn't read your post is soundly rejected. Possibly you didn't read or acknowledge the content of your own post because you have forced yourself into a position where all i have to do is show one single example of something being funny at the expense of no one or nothing to prove you wrong and now you have to be rude (the first sign you know your position is indefensible) and provide little to no justification of any of your numbered points (because you know they are weak).

I'll be honest, i'm not going to entertain suggestions that a joke can be at the expense of an inanimate object or fictional character. Between that and your distinctly shoddy arguments I think you're trolling.

A joke at the expense of a stick? At the expense of a fictional character? ET is not something or someone. It doesn't exist, it is a construct of our imagination and does not have physical form. It isn't even a "thing" (if i say that unicorns are arrogant bastards, does that make me xenophobic? They don't exist, but if ET can suffer jocular expense, unicorns can suffer expense at my comment also. I hate martians too, they're all short, ugly, grey bastards. Am i a racist now?). The zebra thing isn't actually a riddle - it pretends to be a riddle and ends up being silly; i can't understand your reasoning on this and you didn't explain it (no surprises there, your post is full of holes).

When you tell someone a joke, you are entering into a contract by which both people know that word play or trickery is going to be involved. By taking part in the joke, you are voluntarily allowing yourself to be misled so that a juxtaposition of ideas in your head makes you laugh. You aren't laughing at the expense of yourself. In the same way as reading a book or watching a film - you are not being lied to, you are not being tricked, you are a willing participant. When a magician performs a trick for you, you are suspending your disbelief and participating in a flight of fancy for entertainment purposes. Magic isn't shadenfreude either - no one suffers expense, they both enjoy and know that skilful subterfuge has taken place - though i'm sure you'll argue the contrary before you admit you've over committed to your point.

If a clown puts on an act for you and you laugh when his trousers fall down, you aren't laughing at the expense of the clown because he did it intentionally to make you laugh, he did not suffer expense. You are not laughing at the expense of yourself because you know that what he is doing is an act, you did not suffer expense (except for the ticket price, badum tish - there's another 'joke' at the expense of nothing/no one).

What you've tried to do is supply the definition of "joke" or "humour" such that the definition involves the word "trick" in a negative context and thus lead to shadenfreude. Not everyone thinks the same way as you do, which is what i tried to explain to you earlier; if you want to say "to me, everything is shadenfreude - i laugh only ever at the expense of something/someone" then i say fair enough, but that is not what you initially said.

So if/when you first heard the stick joke, you laughed AT the stick? The ET joke, you laughed AT ET? You laughed AT the mathemetician? I don't believe you, but regardless that isn't the point you made; many if not most other people are not laughing at ET or the stick, they are laughing at the juxtaposition of ideas. And therefore comedy/humour (not your very specific definition of it, which is irrelevant to our debate) is not ALWAYS at the expense of others, even if i accept that something that doesn't exist/is inanimate can suffer an emotional expense.

And finally, i don't understand the metaphorical suggestion that i shunned your need for air, when actually i spent a good 20 minutes providing you with air only to have you turn round and say "that's not air, it's nitrogen and oxygen with trace amounts of other gases!" and pull a trollface before passing out. Don't worry though, i'll drag you back to shore and make sure you're ok (this post).

(Coprolite Preservation Managed)

chingalera says...(Chingalera Profile Page)
Below is an example of 'baiting'. I made the public announcement that I would be taking a hiatus from the site to draw-out the quarry: A person who would use his time spraying graffiti on a user's private personal area with a view to no resolution or truth, no self-awareness with the hope of a mutual understanding, rather than engaging in a civil and private discussion about his particular beef with me, chicco now comes with Krylon in-hand.

Unable to defend the indefensible, he degrades into personal-attacks and provocation with a single goal in mind-To attempt to compromise my integrity and provoke some public outburst.

Ain't gonna happen this time sir. I call bullshit when I see it, always have, always will.
5 hours 24 minutes ago up0downflag spam (0)ignore

chingalera says...
As I have asked civilly of you many times chicco, I would appreciate you not making comments to my profile page anything but a private matter. Again, and as have others I have asked (as I extend the courtesy to all, up-front) you simply ignore my requests of decorum because you understand that it is perhaps a type of balm for your self-injury this pestering me and poking at me personally. You rudely disregard this civil request made several times.

Ok, if you think it's a clever trap then that's what it is...a simpler explanation may very well be that once again one or a team of sophomoric pricks have a personal hard-on to see someone burn so they come to shit all over their profile page in that user's absence. This has been perpetrated before by other pricks with the same m.o. and those all tend to remain long-gone, but the flavor after the waft of their of shit continues to linger.

Again, no respect for my privacy.

(To the community-at-large, I continually ask chichorrea whom I have rubbed the wrong way by exposing his unilateral weakness to having his lying and cruelty exposed to remain private in spewing bile upon my profile page an in my absence, he instead litters it like some billboard advertisement announcing 'horseshit for sale')

If you are bound and determined with your unilateral project chicco and you know I'll bite to defend my integrity, why not wait until I come back to participate on this site with the community in-mind before throwing pebbles at my back door?

Who is actually displaying the cowardice here? Really?!

chicchorea said:
...oh, and here too....

There have been a number of posts whereby your conspicuous and transparent absence of response amply confirms all of my, and others' long before me, assertions about your dishonesty and cowardice. Further, your uncharacteristic cleaning house via deleting your profile pages of comments and most notably mine but retaining those of Newtboy whom you think you have bettered is telling as well.

...jailbaited you with this rat trap and you were all over it though. Weak minded and predictable you are.

You cannot refute that which I have repeatedly and amply purported and you dare not challenge me to evidentially support what I have lain down so you run and hide just occasionally sticking your head up to spew your drivel only to duck and cover again.

Run,,,run 'little...thing"...run.

I will be waiting. As you said where you should have not, "ain't done bruhh..."
6 hours 42 minutes ago up0downflag spam (0)ignore

Haha! So evasive! If you think I don't know the 'real' meaning of anarchism, or what it has to do with anomie and Chomsky, then asking me to read wikipedia does nothing to support your point (if, indeed, you had one, which it appears, you do not).

I don't think wikipedia will answer what you mean by "people like you" or what the difference between anomie and anarchy has to do with Chomsky.. But if you think it can, I'm all ears.

But you did stumble upon some truth: "it is useless to argue with you." You're right, and I don't know why you would even want to try.

Typical reply, evasion, non-answer.. You can't defend the indefensible. So I doubt I will ever get a coherent argument from your position.

seriously dude, you're sometimes worse than both of them.

because you enable them. you defend known racists and trolls. you come in here with your fake-conciliatory "lets all be friends, everyone's opinions are valid" bullshit. It's like you come into every sift, pick out the worst posts..and start defending them.

you're like the media. you take absolutely indefensible arguments of others and try to pretend they're equally valid to stoke the flames. What? you didn't think we noticed you working overtime to defend ching lately during his latest off his meds episode? not surprised at all that you're now swooping in to defend another shithead of the sift.

it's so fake and so transparent.

you're another bad symptom of a site that refuses to have moderators and lets known troublemakers back on that's devolved into just noise and incoherency

"solipsism as both irrefutable and indefensible."

I taught my daughters that using violence to win an argument is indefensible. Also, that they cannot hide behind their gender to get away with slapping a man, because the man will be justified in responding in kind.

Early on here on the VS I was posting many offerings from an artist on YT who calls himself/herself readymade777-This user's handle comes from Duchamp's concept of 'life as art' , using video snippets from Prelinger, other YT videos, all moving media. Incidentally, the monkey-robot majority ignored most of these offerings...(choggie=submitter=no votes)Passion, conviction, accusatory banter.... the 'troll' label follows.

Too much truth, meaning, seasoned with urgency and a few expletives=trolll on the Internet. Dissenting opinions? Troll.
Overtly nicey-nice, brown-nosing insincerity, and pointing out fallacy or the short-comings of someone who is indefensible???....This shit makes you friends.

The internet is for pussies.

He clearly *did* run the red light. At the very start of the video, you can see the traffic light for cross traffic is yellow, if you look at the top left of the screen. At 0:06, the yellow light vanishes, meaning that it is now a red light. The truck then appears in the video crossing the intersection.

I don't know what was indefensible about this video.

This demonstrates my point perfectly that not all opinions are equal

One opinion has reason and history behind it. The other does not.

This is not left versus right, this is not "I like you" vs "I don't like you"

This is defensible argument vs indefensible argument. End of fucking story.

I found Ravi's previous lecture much more compelling. The foundation of morality could certainly be defined simply by the UTILITY of peace and cooperation versus the anarchy that would result if atheists simply decided that all decisions should be based on purely on selfish motivations.

Atheists are perfectly able to find value and beauty in life, created, evolved or otherwise. I find his argument incoherent, circular and indefensible. Poetic, sure. But ultimately invalid.