Video has 1m+ views on youtube... looks like it worked out for him.

Leaving aside the mechanics of the coin toss; for me, it's about the level of risk. I'd absolutely risk $10 on a whim because I can afford to lose it. Risking my car or my house would be a completely different proposition.

DrewNumberTwo, I see where you're coming from. Perhaps when can come together in supporting the proposition that police officers routinely wear body cameras.

And jmd, I would agree that I've certainly seen worse when it comes to homemade police encounter recordings. My general annoyance is directed at a group of predominantly adolescent/early 20's males who find ways to be obnoxious and disruptive toward law enforcement officers while avoiding breaking the law, and then equate legality with morality. I would not classify this instance as disruptive in itself, though I speculate that it represents a more general pattern of disruptive behavior given the officer's allusion to other incidents at the police station. I appreciate that my speculation is just that, speculation.

Lastly, I will say, particularly after reading the video taper's post on YT, that the bigger concern here is the police officer's behavior. Wielding the powers invested in a position of privilege as a means to retaliate against someone for personal grievances is reprehensible.

Hey, it reminds me of the Liar's Paradox. The logic is that someone who ALWAYS lies, will say "I never lie". It is a self-referenced logical proposition. I hope that is not the case here.

Trance said he doesn't understand why she doesn't. You said why should she have to? Nobody is saying she has to. She might want to if she'd like to avoid hearing other people speak their mind. It's her choice. Similarly, catcalling is their choice. They don't need to be classy if they don't want to.

The Jessica Williams video is better in that it isn't about privileged white cisgendered problems exclusively. However, it also doesn't make the case very well. There isn't any evidence of "Wall Street douches" making catcalls unless you want to talk about a picture of a blurred out face in a suit verbalizing nothing.

The assertion that many men are making is that girls selectively complain about catcalls. Specifically, they only want attention from the men they want attention from, and expect us to read their minds... I'm sorry... Body language... and figure out the difference.

For example, a (female) friend of mine was a teaching assistant at UT. She tells this story about going over a study on gender differences regarding random propositions for sex. As you might expect the results were that men were more likely to say yes, and women no. Big surprise there. Well, once the professor finished, Vince Young raised his hand and said "that's not how it works." Every girl in the room (according to my friend) blushed, giggled, twirled their hair, and "made eyes at him." It seems every girl in the room was ready for proposition from an nfl quarterback... Just not homeless people drinking on the stoop.

The point at issue isn't 'is islam bad', though obviously it is; but 'is it possible to generalise about large numbers of people who are in the same club and believe the same things' well yes of course it is. As for corroborative evidence, this is not an assertion that requires it. To the extent that it's possible to generalise about anything, it must be possible to generalise about people who have voluntarily signed up to the same ideology.

What's more the actions of individual muslims aren't important. You can't judge any ideology by the actions of its supporters because mostly they will act from, for example, biological imperatives, personal temperament, cultural factors independent of religion and so on, regardless of what they profess to believe. Which is not to say religion isn't influential and dangerous. To assess the merit of an ideology you have to look at what it actually says, what are its core tenets, what are the principles it espouses, and if you do that and ask the question 'does islam promote violence' the answer is an unequivocal 'yes'. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with promoting violence, but it's not my fault these people can't structure a proposition clearly.

Let's build some consensus. I'm sure everyone here can agree that islam's claims are unfactual, that there is no allah, that mohammed was a liar and that all muslims are idiots. These things are obvious, but given these certain truths wherefore do we defend these delusional maniacs? Certainly none of them is innocent. These are creatures who have signed up to follow the example, the whole point of islam is to follow mohammed's example, of a notorious murderer, slaver and rapist (historical and canonical facts); whose rambling, repetitive book is riddled with threats of eternal torture for unbelievers and exhortations to the faithful to slay those unbelievers, hastening them to that unjust end. Guilty, every one.

If you oppose bigotry, you oppose islam.

Because restricting your diet unnecessarily is silly, and can make eating healthy a more difficult proposition. For most people without food allergies or sensitivities, it does not make sense to restrict something like gluten for no reason. Rather it is better to choose what you eat based off of what is healthy, provides the nutrients you need, and doesn't have an excessive amount of calories.

ChaosE - This may be a matter of semantics and definitions. Depending on how you define the terms, I agree with your point.

And, in moral philosophy, if it is not your _choice_, it is not an ethical choice. Sorry if this is philosophical bullshit, but think about it: your "not killing someone" because you don't have the motivation or means is not a virtuous choice, it is simply not NOT an unethical one. It is the lack of a negative, not the presence of a positive. Virtue is about our choices, not our defaults.

Virtue is like building a muscle. The virtue is demonstrated/evidenced in building my strength (taking the time and focus to work out and be disciplined), not in the fact that I am strong. If I stop working out, my muscle will decay.

This is like virtue. In a strange way, once we have habituated a virtuous choice to routine/automatic mode, it is no longer a virtuous choice. It was virtuous to build the habit, but it is not virtuous when it is automatic.

Again, it is philosophical quibbling/definitions, but it points to a real distinction that matters in our moment by moment experience. As moral philosophers put it, morality is about what you do in the face of difficulty and temptation, not when things are automatic. It is easy to be nice to people when life is going great for you. It is hard to be nice to others when things are stressful and falling apart. THAT is where the rubber of morality meets the road of reality/daily life. That is where virtue shows up (or doesn't).

I am married and monogamy is part of my commitment. If no other woman would deign to sleep with me, my not sleeping with them is no indication of my virtue. It is only in the face of propositions to which I say "no" that I am exercising the virtue of fidelity.

In this sense, the more we are responsible for our own choices, the more those choice CAN be virtuous and BUILD our virtuous character. In contrast, when other people make our choices for us, we neither act virtuously nor build virtuous character.

I am sure this is true in your own life. If you donate time/money/effort to a charitable cause, it impacts you personally and powerfully. When the government takes taxes from your paycheck to pay for social programs, it is impersonal and has virtually zero impact on your character.

Or, that is one way of looking at it - which the video is all about.

Maybe I'm uninformed here, but are they saying they're not able to open a debit account? Surely that's a zero risk proposition for any bank (if overdraws are restricted), it's just pure interest for them on anything you keep in there (minus any interest you receive).

Or is it different in the US with your reliance on checks? Even if that's the case, surely checking could just be restricted, leaving you with either cash withdraws or paying by card, with instant electronic verification.

As to transaction fees. Over here in Oz, most transaction and saving accounts are monthly fee free. This is pretty new (as recently as several years ago you'd have a $5-10 monthly fee). Wonder if it's different in the states.

If they're not able to secure a loan, that's a different issue entirely. I don't see how an alternative banking system would help there.

Again, Wikipedia is not a good science class.
uniformitarianism is an absolutist proposition, easily and quickly proven false...and not only by catastrophe. You admit this, then claim it's still correct and still the base. WHAT?!?
Your "cowboy" is not a fossil, it's calcified at best, if not faked. Ever hear of hard water? That they try to play it off as a fossil only shows their blatant disingenuousness and the gullibility of those that want/need their under-educated opinion to be truth.
The point of finding the same sediment at the same level world wide would be to prove a world wide flood, not disprove dating methods. (WHAT are you talking about, just changing the subject in hopes I'll jump with you?!?)
I cite the ridiculousness and non-scientific basis for your argument(s) as reason to not watch another video, you didn't read closely. I don't have another 1/2 hour to give to the willfully misinformed's silly propaganda.

...retenttion managed....

...and barely worth the copy and paste....

You have couched your harrassment of members of this community in numerous self serving ways and that is well established and evidenced by your history here.

As for the assertions that you hypocritically dribbled your filth in my direction as well as that you are a admitted felon I have offered repeatedly to provide irrefutable evidence. You have only offered feeble and empty denials and deflection. Your "filth filled tracks" here and derivable from here provide the proof.

Admit your transgressions and offer some albeit most probably empty assurance to me and the community to curb your self loathing vitriol toward others with whom you disagree and this matter may be tabled barring further eruptions of your pathologies. Notice, no apology is mentioned as I have no faith in your capacity to,,,,

OR

Call me out on the proposition I can fully support my assertions.

(HERE 1ST FOR RETENTION)

...laughing with a head slap at your moronically ridiculous deflection....

I really prefer to believe you are not THAT STUPID in favor of more transparent antics...but I will withhold judgment in the face of the evidence.

You have couched your harrassment of members of this community in numerous self serving ways and that is well established and evidenced by your history here.

As for the assertions that you hypocritically dribbled your filth in my direction as well as that you are a admitted felon I have offered repeatedly to provide irrefutable evidence. You have only offered feeble and empty denials and deflection. Your "filth filled tracks" here and derivable from here provide the proof.

Admit your transgressions and offer some albeit most probably empty assurance to me and the community to curb your self loathing vitriol toward others with whom you disagree and this matter may be tabled barring further eruptions of your pathologies. Notice, no apology is mentioned as I have no faith in your capacity to,,,,

OR

Call me out on the proposition I can fully support my assertions.

@chingalera Cenk is a person like you or I trying to figure a way out of this mess; I don't think the personal attacks help your argument. Most of us are wrong from time to time. It's one of the things that makes us human.

Now the real point: I have an issue with the "reasonable rate" being undefined. Payday loans are predatory and being in the business, regardless of rate, is a scary proposition. If they would double as a credit union I wouldn't have as much of an issue, but without an outright profit motive we can't do a thing in this society anymore. Even this proposal seeks to usurp the existing payday loan profits for the governments coffers... just at a more "reasonable" rate. There is no rate on a payday loan is reasonable; cashing a check should not cost interest.

Which leads to a greater point: We live in an era where we cannot implement decent ideas for the greater good of humanity because the current market can't bear it. What have we wrought here? Who/what are we serving?

Whilst I agree completely with what they're saying, the format is that of an adversarial argument. In fact, it was an obvious scripted dialogue intended to establish a proposition (quote straight out of Monty Python).

7:22 was my favourite: "throwing money into both sides [...] republicans and democrats". That's one side. There's no opposition to the view that they have.

tl;dr: point good; presentation bad.

necssary news headline: biased reporting used to oppose biased reporting.

"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).

This is all a bit silly. The only way to get proper work done is to use a PC. With a full sized keyboard and mouse.

I go into one client site where she's got this laptop with an awful keyboard that's laid out in a weird way. So i'm constantly looking to see where the arrow keys, page down/up etc. Makes me want to hook up an external keyboard.

Tablets are wonderful toys. Nice but at best limited for work. A smartphone is much better because it's with me all the time and I can deal with emails and do basic research and er, make phone calls.

I don't know what Surface is - it's a confused proposition. [edit] And is it running RT or is it full Windows? Given the price I'm assuming it's the useless version.