Sagemind is more tactful than I. I spent most of my teens and twenties around bikers, and I've never found any other group more honorable and self-controlled. Quite a few individuals can reach those goals, but not many groups.

If you insist on painting people you don't know with broad strokes, I'll happily stand up for bikers as a group.

"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).

So just to throw it straight out there; I'm a massive biker (though mostly solo so I can't really relate to the gang mindset here). You have no idea what this whole debacle does to my priorities!

So on the one hand provoking the man in the big metal cage (no matter how good the perceived reason) is basically never a good idea if your on a bike. And moreover beating someone to within an inch of his life and cutting him up is very very rarely a good or condonable solution to anything, even if he did just run over a couple of your buddies....

On the other hand......well (and this might only really find any sympathy from fellow motor-bicycleists)..........I can fill in some of the gaps that might explain why one biker felt the need to brake hard in front of him etc. from my own experiences.

Some (very few) drivers go out of their way to fuck with you sometimes over little shit, they get a big head tucked away safely inside their big metal cages and they take it upon themselves to cause you grief in some way or another.
On a regular basis for instance I have car drivers deliverately pull their cars out to try and stop me filtering (lane splitting) despite the fact that A. its totally legal and featured on my fucking licence test! and B. It actually speeds their miserable existence in the traffic flow up as we don't have to take up a car's space (and were fucking gone before most cars are even in gear when the lights change anyway)!

Fortunately I have the perfect solution to this problem, I ride a cheapish looking bike and don't show any signs of stopping for them as they veer over deliberately into my path! You'd be amazed how often they just back off :-D (if not I'm only ever doing 5-10mph so stopping is always an option for that odd psycho)

Not saying I remotely condone the bikers responses, but I do understand how this thing probably escalated. I suspect the bikers had a legit frustration but clearly they dealt with it very poorly. The biker side of the story seems to be that this guy had been deliberately blocking lanes and exchanging insults for a while leading up to when the braking biker escalated things,a situation I've witnessed myself before. Normally prudence makes you leave it alone and back off/accelerate away (or if they are being an extra special twatbag knock off a mirror and accelerate into the distance :-D (never actually done that, but it's seriously crossed my mind a couple of times, Kevlar knuckles are the shit!)). In this case the extra courage that only a 1000 or so fellow kinsmen stood at your side can bring had the usual effect..........Mobs will be the death of us all.

@newtboy is right though, bikers totally killed their own case reacting so aggressively. If they'd followed at a reasonable distance and waited for police to show up things would probably have gone completely the other way legally. Sure the dude that brakes in front of him might get charged but it'd be nothing on attempted vehicular murder/manslaughter running over a handful of bikers. Chasing down and then beating a man half to death in front of his family unfortunately rather overshadows your defence.


Sadly the only sensible conclusion I seem to be able to find is this was ultimately douche nozzles with no self control baiting other douche nozzles with no self control. But I do get it. I also totally get the drivers response once it escalated, I'd have shit bricks and maybe made a run for it through them by that stage too!

I really really really wish I could hear what was actually said between them oh well, back to the fence I go!


EDIT: I just wanted to come back and make it absolutely clear that I also acknowledge that bikes in groups (especially sports bikes and supermoto's as featured here) are just as capable of acting like power drunk fucknuts too. It's entirely possible the bikers started it a way's back and the driver was essentially an innocent man driven to extreme lengths by fear (though I'm still going with straight up hot douche on douche action for now)

First, you again label me with your convenient labels knowing absolutely NOTHING about me. You make the mistake of assuming I'm an average consumer/waster/litterer. You would be wrong. I've never once thrown litter out my window or elsewhere since I was an adult, including cigarette butts and water bottles. In fact, I have bought fewer than 5 bottles of water in my lifetime. I grow my own food for the most part, and I don't buy much, so my garbage output is severely limited. Even my driving habits are below average, well under 5K miles per year.
(You have it backwards, in your scenario the asshat wants to shove his shit into my ass because I don't want it on our roads. If you think that's OK, I just don't know what to say except stay the hell away from me and mine!)
Second, you seem to be up in arms that someone would have the unmitigated gall to call someone else out on their illegal, immoral, and incredibly rude behavior by returning the offending litter, and your knee jerk reaction is to say you would do something worse to that jerk that had the gall to call you out and return your litter? Hmmmm. That's not a reasonable or logical reaction, and is what I expect from 5 year olds and meth heads.
The guy throwing shit out the window repeatedly after someone went to the extreme of going into traffic to retrieve the litter and return it has the death wish, he's poking an unstable bear (OK, really 2 unstable bears) while ensuring no one would come to his aid when it all goes wrong.
Interesting, in private you agree with me on many points, but when I call you out in public for making ridiculous statements attempting to be a little fucking thing (another way to say an annoying object, which is exactly what you have told me you are trying to be) you go off in unintelligible tirades. The hilarious thing about this one is we both seem to be suggesting similar responses, just by different parties. It seems if I don't agree with you 100%, I must disagree with you 100% (in your mind) and therefore must be insanely unreasonable.
Repeatedly littering when numerous others have gone above and beyond to stop you is insane, out of control, rude, and illegal, and is asking for some other idiot to take things a step farther out of control. Ramming one of their cars was BEGGING to be ripped out and beaten, he was just lucky the guy he hit wasn't the same kind of hot head. You think everyone besides you is insane, uneducated, and completely lacking self control, so how does antagonizing them and escalating the already hot situation do any good for anyone?
I just can't understand how anyone with the intelligence to type can defend the litterer in this. Even if you think everyone in the situation was wrong to some degree, the litterer A. started the situation B. was doing something both illegal and immoral C. repeated this action and D.escalated to vehicular assault. You really need some serious mental gymnastics ala Eric Cartman to make him the one who was wronged or righteous.

I can't see what you claim at all...in most 'skate parks' you are allowed to skate anywhere in the park...and it certainly looks to me like they have the entire area set up for skating. He was NOT headed towards picnic tables, those are blocks set up for skating. He is running AWAY from the table area straight towards the street (on the map/link eric3579 found, thank you). You can see the tables clearly, they have benches attached. From the pavilion Mom comes from (and we all assume the child too), the child is over 1/2 way to the street, where he may have ended up if the skater didn't stop him. That skater just saved that kids life, and got sucker punched for it!! ;-}
I also completely disagree that under all circumstances it's the older person's responsibility to avoid the free running toddler bolting out from behind an object directly into your path. I don't understand why you give the toddler a free pass just because he's young...that's why he needed supervision. That's why I say it was nearly entirely the MOTHER'S fault, for not watching her child in a dangerous area, then blaming others when something expected happens.
When you say things like 'her reaction was pretty normal' it implies clearly that it's acceptable. It was not acceptable in any way.
edit: A better way to say it might be 'her reaction was unacceptable, but understandable from someone with no self control'.
After the first punch/shove, he should have raised the board as a shield, then swung it like a club when she kept coming. There's no excuse for her behavior.
I am often surprised at the lack of self control many have, and the excuses others want to make for their inexcusable behavior.
If you're the type of irresponsible parent that lets their child run free unattended and unwatched in dangerous public areas where others are doing dangerous things in a manner and place prescribed by law and you get violently angry at others when the predictable happens, I think you're an idiot and should have your child taken from you. That's a typical problem with most parents, reason and responsibility goes out the window when it comes to their child.

It's hearing stuff like this that makes me ok with the recent determination that obesity is a disease.

There's a definite line between obesity like this and simply being overweight. Lots of people are overweight, but this guy is insanely obese and apparently has no self control..his wife apparently has no self control either.

I have to admit, part of me shares Yogi's sentiment. Part of me wants to simply let people like this die. But they're going to be a massive burden on the health care system no matter which way you look at it so we might as well try to learn something from the guy. sociologically and medically, then maybe we can prevent this shit in the long term.

Obesity is our next national concern. As much as I want to blame people like the guy in the video. They don't deserve 100 percent of the blame.

Shitty food keeps getting cheaper and cheaper and healthy food keeps getting more and more expensive. We have a health care system that is designed around covering up symptoms instead of solving the root causes.

It's not impossible to live a healthy lifestyle in spite of these factors, but it certainly isn't getting easier.

There is clearly some psychological issues at play here, not just purely eating too much and not exercising.

You misunderstand the motivation for the language of stereotype used to describe the general dynamics of alcohol in Great Britain, i.e., a pub at every intersection-Hey man, alcohols' the last legal drug here in the states as well for the same reason: Governments and international criminals (same same, but different, as they say in Thailand) control the drug trade around the world. They limit which drugs may be manufactured or sold. They make incredible amounts of money doing so.

Governments and international criminals also corner the market on guns and artillery and ammunition and do their best to control the distribution and manufacture to insure one thing: Control and centralization of power.

We're not suggesting Brits are more prone to drunkenness and brawling than the same sort of tits in the U.S. I am simply suggesting sane remedies that do not involve baby-out-with-bathwater solutions to some seriously flawed fundamentals: societal and cultural evolution should be determined by sober consensus without emotion instead of this bullshit, "But what about the children?!" line of reasoning promulgated by criminals in power...A line that is trumpeted by so-called representatives and used as a tool (kind of like a gun is a tool) along with the complicit and effective tool of propaganda called market television, or major media, or whatever label for abject disinformation and agenda-pumping that benefits a few that some people who see owning guns as horrifying, have bought into.

The way to keep your children safe form psychopaths is to reinvent society and gradually change culture in a direction that heals the planet instead of raping it. Less fucking insane parents mean less fucking insane kids. Fuck licensing firearms, how about licensing parents before they plop out another?

How do you cure a country like North Korea, whose people for a few generations have been systematically trained in totalitarian shit-think?? It's a job no one wants to think about. As long as planetary ass-rape is the direction we are headed, guns guns guns my easily-insulted brother, and less shit-think. I'm not a fucking idiot, but my government is being run into the ground by cunts and assholes and douchebags who have most of the control over most of the guns and drugs! See how simple it is??

Guns violence by a FEW + International media coverage with a view to convincing people that guns (OF ANY KIND OR CAPACITY) are the problem = what should be an insult to your intelligence at the very least, and a goddamn warning shot across the bow that World Police State is what the cunts really want for humanity.

Gun control happens shortly after a gun is manufactured, unless you want to accidentally hurt yourself or another utilizing another kind of control. Self-Control maybe??

I like how some people think it's the companies fault shoppers acted like this... like they have no self control.

And others think it's natural human behaviour.... and they have no self control.

And others are embarrassed this makes Americans look like greedy consumerists.

Tears down my face this was so good !

And 4:15 -> 4:30 great self control by Conan :-D

>> ^messenger:

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.
I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.
I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

You are a moron, fond only of the nonsense you spout.You have nothing of intellect to convey, so be quiet and know your place...

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.

I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.

I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

Fair enough - it sounds like you're certain in every practical sense, but you don't believe you have "absolute knowledge". That was really the main distinction I was trying to make. Certainly I agree that you can't reason in any meaningful way without writing off certain kinds of extreme possibilities.

I think absolute knowledge is possible even from our subjective standpoint. For instance, it is absolutely true that "something" exists. Any argument against this is actually proof that it is true.

In any case, I am making a claim to absolute knowledge, because divine revelation could only ever be absolute knowledge. A person receiving such revelation would have a justified true belief in God. That's my claim. It's not something I could prove..only God could prove it, but neither am I unjustified in believing it.

I understand the contrast here, and I think I understand now what you're trying to get at better - I just don't think this contrast is fundamental to the question I'm interested in (which is different, I think, than the one you're interested in). To me the intermediary steps are fungible - it's the start states that are interesting to me, and to me they all require arbitrary stuff that I don't like, but that seem necessary.

Well, originally you were responding to this question:

"I'll ask you the same question I ask messenger..how would you tell the difference between a random chance Universe and one that God designed? What test could you conduct to find out which one you were in? When you can come up with a test to determine that, then you can tell me that there is no evidence. Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is evidence."

If we can boil all of the possibilities down to design and chance, how could you tell which Universe you were in? What test could you conduct that would tell you the difference? Atheists often demand some kind of empirical proof of God, yet they are never forthcoming on the details of what that proof would consist of. That is really the impetus behind this question..

I think this difference in focus may come down to our varying perceptions of those intermediary steps. For me, the general big bang model, ideas of how stars and planets coalesced, natural abiogenesis, and evolution are reasonably credible as they stand and I expect those theories to develop and become more credible. You see those things very differently. I think that naturally leads to a different focus.

The reason I don't see them as credible is because of a lack of evidence. For instance, there is absolutely no evidence of abiogenesis, at all. In fact, louis pasteur proved that it is most likely impossible. Life has never once been observed coming from non-life. Yet, it is assumed to be true because "there must be a naturalistic origin to life". It's a just-so story and it isn't at all credible. I've heard the odds of it happening are far greater than the number of atoms in the Universe.

People tell me that Creation sounds like a fairy tale, but then they tell me their own story that begins with "once upon a time a frog became a prince", and this somehow sounds plausible when you throw in billions of years.

time is in fact the hero of the plot. the impossible becomes possible..time itself performs the miracles.

George Wald
Harvard
Nobel laureate

I agree with this as well - to an extent. Having a unique God makes for a simple explanation in general (although it gets a bit complicated in practice for how we ended up precisely "here"). For the general problem of "how did this all get here", your recipe is very simple if it starts with God. On the flip side, God is a very big thing to assume. I think a case can be made for belief in a general God on something like this basis. Though I don't personally find it a convincing case at this time, that could change.

I think you'll have to admit that God is a much better theory than "I don't know". Yet, people bandy about "I don't know" as if this is the superior position. You have to wonder why to even think that the Universe was designed is subject to so much ridicule and derision, when it is actually a perfectly reasonable theory that is supported by evidence. As far as assuming God goes, you don't need to explain God to postulate Him as a possibility. What matters is whether the idea has explanatory power. The question always is, is God a better explanation for the evidence?

It isn't always an evidential argument, either. There many logical arguments to assume there is a God:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

Perhaps another question: for you personally, would you describe your situation as more like "God provided me with special evidence, and I reason that He must exist because of this evidence" or more like "God produced a change in me directly, such that I now believe (unmediated by your own reason)"? (Or, obviously, something in between or different altogether). I think this would clarify your situation for me.

I received evidence in a number of different ways. One, is that God fundamentally changed me. In the blink of an eye, where I was broken, I was now healed. Where there was addiction, there was self-control. Where there was hate, there was now love and forgiveness. Where there was darkness, there was now light. It was instantaneous and it certainty had nothing to do with me. I would have stayed the way I was, left to my own devices. It was a supernatural transformation of my inner being.

Another thing is that God has demonstrated to me, beyond all reasonable doubt, that He is in absolute control of everything. To the extent that I no longer include the word coincidence in my vocabulary. In short, He has used my internal and external experiences to give me evidence of His existence, and this is ongoing. I always experience the presence of God because His Spirit lives within me.

There are other ways that I cannot quite put into words. The peace of God transcends all understanding. His love surpasses all expectation and every height; it is a deep and wondrous mystery. He is my Father, and I am his (adopted) son. My relationship with God is a personal one that has changed my entire life in every conceivable way, beyond anything I could ever imagine or hope for.

>> ^jmzero

"Undeserved Profit"? Pretty sure no one has ever been forced to buy things from them. I'm not sure if he's insinuating they've committed some type of fraud, but from the context of the video I think he's making a value judgement.

The idea that Steam is a small player, 100% squeaky clean and all about the customer? Well, they're a damn-sight better than most of their competitors, but I point you to their allowance of regional pricing hikes as one example (see the Australian store). As for their size, Steam sales equate to approximately 70+% of all digital sales, I think they're gonna be okay next to Origin.

BTW, no one has forced anyone to use Origin. As much as I want to play BF3, ME3, etc., I've managed to go without buying games released on it (and that doesn't mean pirating them either). If it's really a problem for you, show some self control.

For that matter, if you don't agree with their treatment of workers, there's another reason not to use their products.

Vote with your wallets, look elsewhere for your entertainment. There's a veritable Golden-Age of independent games going on all around you!

@my15minutes and I are both GW1 veterans. Thousands, and thousands, and thousands of hours. I would love nothing more than to lose myself in GW2, but I'm terrified it will jeopardise my PhD because of my lack of self-control. (I'm not even kidding, I'm actually very worried.)

GW1 was nothing short of amazing. Perhaps what is not known quite so well about GW1 though, is that it had intensely competitive, challenging, and satisfying PvP. (See here for an example from one of the best guilds ever [rawr] -- probably hard to follow if you don't know GW.)

GW2 looks spectacular too.

Fuck. FSM help me, I'm so screwed.

A triumph of self control. There's no way I wouldn't be in prison if I was him.