I am open to rational answers, but not hokum. Using mythos to prove mythos is no answer.
I've said I'm not open to suspending rationality or sanity, you say that means I won't listen to you....um.....

I offered precise questions in hope of precise answers, but got off topic rambling and accusations I won't listen. Understand why I don't respect that?

First, that's not an answer at all or even addressing my questions, it's a misdirection question.
Second, I don't know, but I'm 100% sure there's been zero credible evidence of it that I've ever heard of, as are you, and that it's a totally incredible story which require extraordinary evidence.

How do you know there's no FSM? I've seen exponentially more evidence of his existence than Yahweh's. I've eaten pasta. I absolutely believe in it more than Yahweh, but that's not a high bar.
Edit: How do you know there's no Allah? Odin? Zeus? Mythra? Mot? Cthulhu?

One more time, my questions were 1.why is God's word so easily misstated, misunderstood, misidentified, misused, confused, and used for evil and hate? (Edit: especially given that properly interpreting it is allegedly the only way to escape eternal torture, seems like a set up.) 2.why is disbelief apparently worse than murder, rape, and slavery and so not covered by Jesus's sin erasing sacrifice and the only sin that's totally unforgivable.
I am interested in and open to an actual answer to either or both if you have one. It won't make me believe, but it might help me understand those who do a little better.

That looks like a lot of fun except for the not being able to breathe part, which kind of ruins it. I also notice there is no film of him returning to the surface, so I salute his sacrifice for my entertainment.

After countless sacrifices, ISIS has finally found the one!

I understand, and "pollution per capita" is a logical argument. But from my point of view there are some critical problems and many flaws with following such reasoning. For example:

The US isn't the greatest emitter of Co2 per capita, but when that's brought up...the argument falls back to emissions in absolute terms. Many would say that that's hypocritical.

Wealth inequality is particularly bad in the US, with the top 20% of the population holding upwards of 88% of all wealth (while the total wealth of individuals isn't GDP, it does correlate with income flow). Doesn't this skew GDP per capita, holding the poor in the US to an unfair standard, vis a vis emissions? If it doesn't, then how is it unfair to poor, rural Chinese?

No international organizations agree on the definition of a "developing" country. Without this, aren't these types of arguments extremely subjective and open to abuse? The point being that there are very, very few "apples-to-apples" comparisons available. For example, would it be a fair comparison if I told you that China's per capita Co2 emissions exceeded the per capita emissions of the EU starting back in 2014?

But you're right...in that the US has polluted the most in absolute terms historically (with China catching up pretty fast). We didn't have a "God-given" right to do it; for most of it, we didn't even know that "it" (Co2) was a pollutant.

You're also right that as individual Americans we have more power to demand change. I understand and accept the dangers of climate change, and I very much want to do something about it. This is why I'm so frustrated with our current administration.

I just want you to understand that I'm not strictly pro-US and/or anti-China. In my opinion, climate change is giving us one resource to either take advantage of or to squander. That resource is time. And time isn't going to make accommodations for any nation, big or small, rich or poor.

This is why I'm troubled by a government like the CCP, that has plans to accelerate their emissions. We know better now (re. Co2), and so such actions on their part are unreasonably selfish. They know their actions will likely hurt or kill all of us, and yet they continue...with the hope that other nations will sacrifice so much as to be properly weakened while they themselves are strengthened.

I understand that in a perfect world, we'd have an equality of outcome. Wouldn't that be great? But we don't have the time left to make most of South America, much of Asia and virtually all of Africa economic equals. What we can do is get our own emissions down to as close to zero as possible, and help these nations build up an infrastructure using green energy. In this way, maybe we can try to foster at least an equality of opportunity energy-wise. The Chinese government has the funds to not only fully transform their own nation, but also to help to some degree in the aforementioned global initiative. But instead of being honestly proactive, they're creating a new cold-war mindset. This is not only wasting time, but also resources (both their own and those of the US in seeking to maintain their strategic edge militarily) that could be better used to help the less fortunate.

So what do we do? Well, I'm not entirely sure. But I can tell you that having other countries paint the US as a villain in this issue, and China as a saint certainly isn't helping.

In America, you have every right to ignore them unless they give a lawful command, which you must obey. They cannot arrest you for silence, or for ignoring a request. I'll take my brother's expensive lawyer's advice over anyone's, and he said the only answer allowed is "ask my lawyer", and to do what they command, but not what they ask.

The girl wasn't aggressively pushing to me, but she also wasn't complying with a lawful command. If the audio is any indication, she was trying to get her phone out of her pocket while lying down handcuffed. She should have complied, but they also should have put her all the way in like they're trained to do, not 3/4 of the way. It's easy and safe to open the other door and pull her another foot into the car where she can't block anything, and that doesn't result in a lawsuit and more public distrust, but that wouldn't teach her a lesson. Pepper spray is not as safe as that by far.

It's not cool to hate cops, and I really wish they would stop getting caught doing things that foster hatred. I want them to act in a way the public can always support, not the least patient and most aggressive they can legally justify in every situation. It would be good if they could be thinking 'how would I feel if someone did this to my daughter/son under the same conditions.
I doubt any of them would be ok with that happening to their child, tantrum or no. They could have been worse here, but also could have defused it all with a single simple command to sit at the beginning. Don't expect an irrational, young, scared girl to act like an adult...that's beyond the capabilities of most adults.

You can humbly submit to authority if you wish. My forefathers fought and died to secure my rights to not answer questions or submit to the every whim of authority, I'll not disrespect their sacrifices by waiving those hard won rights for authority's, or my own convenience.

It would be nice if 15 year old girls were civil, but few I've known are when cornered. I think that's the real reason for the spraying, but not an excuse imo. To me, the cop's pride needs to give way to reason and logic, or we'll keep paying out multi million dollar judgements.

You say that jokingly, but I'm actually at that point after decades of trying to minimize my ecological footprint.
I see no chance that humanity will get it's shit together to even slow climate change, much less avoid it being disastrous. I think we passed the point of no return decades ago, and I now feel foolish for trying to be responsible instead of going for my own maximum enjoyment/payoff. No longer will I deny myself things I want in an effort to try to save the planet, because I don't even think it's possible anymore, nor do I think the majority of humans will do the same. Now I just feel like a sucker for not getting mine while the getting was good, because that's what nearly everybody else did, so my small sacrifices meant nothing....and now we're doubling down on that mindset by backing out of the Paris agreement, which was already too weak and slow to help anything, but too much for Trump.

We're doomed!

@kir_mokum has a point.this is dennis prager,from the illustrious (sarcasm) prager university.

you are not entirely incorrect when you state that this appears to be "fact-based",and it is..up to a point,because those 'facts' have been carefully cherry-picked to lead you to a pre-determined conclusion.

this video,in a nutshell,is propaganda.

he uses the word 'evil" as if somehow it is representative of communism.this is a canard,communism is not "evil",those who wielded power in their respective communist systems,perpetrated those "evil" acts.

communism itself,is not inherently evil.
failed and ultimately destructive and oppressive,but not inherently evil.

we can apply pragers logic to our own economic system of capitalism and come to the exact same conclusion that he did with communism.capitalism also causes immense hardship and suffering,and also death.deaths by the tens of thousands.

is capitalism "evil"?
of course not.

he also states without evidence,or supporting sources,that the "liberal" intelligencia from our higher educational system refuse to admonish communism as "evil".of course they don't,because communism is not inherently "evil",but stalin and moa WERE despotic tyrants,who were responsible for perpetrating immense hardship,suffering and death.a.k.a=evil.

i find it interesting how prager will state,and with zero sense of irony,how communism is "evil" and yet ignore how capitalism,and america's neoliberalsm policies across the globe kill millions.how even here in america,we have cities and towns laid waste by these policies of capitalism.they are called "sacrifice zones",and they look like beruit more than an american city.

i mean,if you are going to blame an economic system for being "evil",at least be philosophically consistent.

but no mention of that at all.
because prager is an ideologue who prays at the altar of neoliberalism and capitalism.he has an agenda,and manipulates facts to fit his own narrative to convince you that his argument is righteous.

it is not.
it is propaganda.

Anarchy? Human sacrifice? Wow...no exaggeration there.

So, it's unconstitutional for the federal government to compel local law enforcement to enforce federal law by withholding federal funds (that's reserved for state governments to do or not do)...and that's Trump's plan.

It's surprising that this entire issue is so clear in the constitution but still being argued. It's also surprising the right insists that local law enforcement must ignore the law (by detaining people for 48 hours with no state charges pending) for FREE. The Fed does not reimburse states for those expenses, they're expected to just eat it. It's also surprising that this is all about ICE not wanting to have to actually show up and arrest those they want in a timely fashion, but insisting on having a 2 day window, unlike all other law enforcement. If ICE wants to deport people from "sanctuary cities" (a total misnomer) all they need to do is show up when they're released. WTF.

Yeah, I think the ending is still, idk... like, the selfless sacrifice comes across too much as a sort of "look, he woke her up because he was like, really in lurv with her all along" kinda move, which just shallows the whole thing EYE EM OH.

also I just want Pratt's character to suffer for his choice.

also leave Jennifer alone, she's mine.

or at least wake me up too. What Chris? Afraid of a lil competition?

You're right but at the same time I have quite enjoyed television movies and low budget films with that special someone in the cast. For example, I thought the Amityville Horror with Patty Duke (the 4th movie, I believe) was pretty interesting, and not even despite its low budget, because of it.

Besides you're not 100% correct about how the single star drains the pool of resources. Oftentimes these stars act as investment magnets, so people are more willing to help produce the film if it has a star such as Shirley MacClaine. Look at Reservoir Dogs -- did Harvey Keitel detract or attract from the success of the film, and the long term successes of Quentin Tarrantino, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth and Chris Penn? Like international acclaim -- for a low budget flick from a nobody.

I'm always very curious about these types of films. It requires, for me, an almost scientific, socioeconomic evaluation of the film making process to fully appreciate, or just a curiosity of film and social interactions portrayed in film and around film sets and the bureaucracy of generating the funds and jerryrigging devices to fulfill smaller budget scenarios which drive such a project as this to fruition.

I'm very interested in seeing this movie because it looks like it could actually be good and not just a thing to pan because of the limitations.

I had a film professor who wrote a couple Jean Claude Van Damme direct to DVD movies and his view of film projects was that they are nearly impossible to complete objectives that require self sacrifice and a warrior spirit to fully realize.

Films remind me of how different societies growths are based upon resource allocation, so some societies become empires and some remain scattered tribes and disparate families. Same as in film; this is like a missing link. Strange and curious to behold but human.

Besides, you don't give a fuck about mermaid movies. This is being made for kids that like mermaids lol -- I grew up watching Disney's Little Mermaid, had every word of the film memorized, but I'm certain it didn't matter that it had a better staff and bigger budget because I also had a made for tv dinosaur movie's rap song memorized and written down in phonetic child sound language.

@worm
ha! touche'

i come from a different perspective.
i am the dude sitting on the bench watching the ultra left and ultra right collectively pee themselves,but over such inane,and partisan of political perfunctory reasons.

the ultra left are a gaggle of cry-babies who see racism,sexism and misogyny everywhere,and they openly seek to shut down conversations and discussions by accusation of the very thing they are supposedly fighting for.

the ultra right..however...

are equally detestable in their faux hyper-nationalism,super patriotism authoritarianism.jesus came to earth so you could drive a beamer...but ONLY if your american.

who wet their wee panties at even the slightest thought of a brown person coming to take away their god given right to be a gun toting,cheetos flavored,ignorant twat.

they just LOVE to take credit for accomplishments that they never had a part in,nor had the balls to even attempt.

i am ex-military,and every right winger..and i mean EVERY right winger i know..never served a day.

so i get your point mate.
it is rather hilarious in an existential way,how both the right and left and so unabashedly unaware of their own hypocrisy.

the ultra left have chosen to fight racism,sexism and misogyny by..../drum roll....

shutting down free speech by not only calling everyone who disagrees a :racist,sexist and misogynist,but by also attempting to legislate the very language we use...you know..to communicate.

whereas the ultra right have become such boot lickers due to their own xenophobic fears of everything:different,other and strange that they literally piss themselves at even the mention of brown people,and appear to be willing to sacrifice every civil right,just so they can feel "safe".

they hide behind the flag and hyper-patriotism but thats all bullshit...they are simply trying to hide the pee stains on their camos.they hate brown people with the same viciousness that they hate the godless liberals.

they band together under the banner of jesus,god and country and state..quite loudly..that they will FIGHT sharia law in america.

while seemingly noble,it belies the fact that nobody is trying to impose sharia law in the USA,but holy jesus on a fuck stick,do they drool over the thought of having a "christian" nation,with "christian" values and "christian" laws.

so DOWN with sharia law (which there is no evidence)
and UP with christian theocracy! (which there is AMPLE evidence of).

the hyper ultra political extensions have taken control of my countries political discussion.

a gaggle of bed wetting cry-babies who dominate this hyper-partisan narrative.

and i am just sitting over here laughing my ass off at the almost surreal absurdity of what has become of my nation.

if you still think the fight is between liberal vs conservative,then i submit you have not been paying attention.

you been taken.
you been had.
you have been sold a bill of bullshit goods that has more place on a daily soap opera than in our political discussion.

the simple fact is this:
liberals WON the moral argument,but they never got the memo.
and the conservatives forgot who they were and sought solace in the arms of a corporate jesus with the face of joel olsteen.

my country has now entered the stage of farce.
we are a fucking joke.

but feel free to keep on poking liberals..

and liberals..

keep on poking conservatives.

and i shall sit here feeding the pidgeons laughing my ass off at both of you.

Politics needs a gauntlet of Al Frankens, like fear and corruption sniffing sphinxes, eviscerating the minds of every single pathetic puppet that enters our political rat race. If you can't get blasted by a room of geniuses, FUCK YOU.

After you get out of the mental gauntlet you won't want to go back if you're not qualified! Maybe the senate sacrifices and feasts upon the bodies of the unworthy.

This place (videosift) seems to be filled with a plethora of liberal ideals and videos about liberal ideals.

This is all just my opinion, but here it is none the less:
The simple reason these people voted Trump is these people don't WANT hand-outs and government cheese. But what they do want is someone who they feel will put the USA first and bring back jobs. They, for whatever reason, felt that would Trump over Hillary. If they had to hang Obamacare on a cross and sacrifice it to improve their long-term economic standing, then so be it.

It isn't like they really LIKED Obamacare, they were just FORCED to buy it.

I'll bite. (needless to say, spoilers)

The characters certainly had motivation.

Jyn's motivation, much like Rae in FA, is simple, daddy issues. She isn't so much invested in the rebellion as she is in enacting vengeance for her father. She is stunted emotionally and is not idealistic, but I think she uses that as a vehicle to push other characters along with her. Her last moments with Cassian aren't driven by any great romance, just the solace of two people who don't know if what they did will make a difference, but they succeeded in what they set out to do. I suspect she understood before she left Yavin that she was not going to get out of it alive, which sort of fits with her fairly nihilistic view of the universe.

Cassian was entirely driven by the fight against the Empire. He was willing to do anything, and was completely ruthless at the start, but he does mellow towards the end as Jyn makes a point of saying that he was like a stormtrooper. He is a zealot, a true believer, and is willing to sacrifice everything, even his humanity, for the cause.

Orson, the imperial commander, is a mixture of patriotism and self interest. He's a fervant believer in the imperial ethos of bringing order to the galaxy, but he is also deeply interested in recognition and commensurate rise in rank. He is so motivated that he risks his life directly to try and stop the rebels (not something you typically see bad leader types do outside of superhero movies, that's what henchmen are for) at the end.

The droid is all programming, but his comedy relief is explained by the dialogue that slicing an imp droid can affect it's personality. He is the one of the few light hearted notes (and consequently gives us a pretty poignant note when he says goodbye and get's shut down) in what is a fairly depressing movie. His bluntly honest statements are perfectly ironic and as such really do deserve the laughs they get.

The monk and the warrior were guardians of a temple but are now displaced. While it's couched in the monks mysticism, I think honestly they were happy to stand up to the big bad guys who wrecked their temple and extract some form of revenge. I think it would please both of them to know that it was worth it in the end.

The imperial defector seems to have little motivation, but he has already taken the dangerous step of defecting and getting the ball rolling for the entire plot etc, he's obviously completely displeased about the empire and willing to risk his life to do something about it.

Saul has been driven mad by the fight. The rebel leadership all seem to fit well within their established roles in the canon, as do Tarkin and Vader. Random rebel and imp personal are placeholders and who really gives a fuck what their motivations are? X D

/shrug As far as character development goes, it's certainly not a work for the ages, but to say these characters are going to get a thing because they need to get a thing seems to be nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

Oh yeah, and in regards to AT AT's, it's a strategic imperial world and heavily garrisoned. Likely a staging point for excursions around the galaxy as well. It has major shielding, AA and fighter complements, Star Destroyers standing guard etc. Sure, fan service is a thing (although the homages in R1 are far less clunky than FA, including things like the Hammerhead, references to the cartoons etc), but as an imp commander, I would certainly release AT AT and AT ST vehicles against an attacking force of unknown size, particularly when you see a whole bunch of landing pads explode simultaneously. Are their 10 commandos or 1,000? 10,000? Yeah, go lowball and wait for them to walk out in the open right? \= |

It's not like the AT AT's were stomping all over the archive looking for a guy hiding behind valuable Imp data infrastructure, they are roaming the outer regions and are fairly proof against ground troops. Makes sense to me.

Dunno, I think the RLM reviews are generally entertaining and thoughtful, but in this case whoever writes Plinkett has let his acerbic dislike of "new" Star Wars cloud his objectiveness imo. It was an enjoyable flick and certainly one I intend to own. I don't think it's anywhere near the best sci fi (although I kinda like it on par with Empire) movie out there, but it's far better than RLM gives it credit for, imo.