Sadly, it's only after leaving the positions of power that people seem to realize this is true, that you are required to analyze orders and to refuse those that are illegal (and question those that are unreasonable or appear illegal).
In practice, questioning orders is a good way to end up in military prison.
Also, most fear losing their position of power far more than they fear being caught following illegal orders. Few if any have ever been prosecuted.
It's for this reason that we have the crimes exposed by Manning and Snowden, up to and including mass murders, torture, illegal indefinite detention, etc. , that have never been prosecuted, but those who exposed the illegal orders and acts have been prosecuted, whistleblower protection laws be damned.
It's pretty disingenuous for this man to say that Trump's illegal orders would be questioned and ignored when all the illegal orders he received during his tenure were followed without question.

EDIT: Interesting, I just found out he's publicly supported by the KKK, and American National SuperPac, founded by a consortium of white terror groups, but he claims to not know who they are. Reports out of Super Tuesday states Minnesota and Vermont have revealed there are recorded calls telling voters Trump will stop the “gradual genocide against the white race” and to not vote for Marco Rubio because he’s “Cuban.”
Trump has yet to disavow any of these terrorist racial groups, but has accepted money from them. That should certainly disqualify him from holding high public office and really should have him on the terrorist watch list, he's associated with and accepts fudging from well know, active terrorist groups.

I imagine that's probably a very socially well adjusted and friendly chimp, but throughout the video I couldn't help thinking it might not be a good idea to intentionally piss off an animal that may not consider chewing off your face an unreasonable response to pissing it off.

Hrm...

"whatever you humanist fuckheads are arguing for"

"I'm sorry, did I trigger you? Did I piss in your safe space? Aww."

Why is it that people that go out of their way to offend suddenly complain when it comes back at them?

I had a pretty reasonable response brewing to the post where you came up with the fuckhead bit, and trashed it because reasonable didn't seem what you were interested in. So why waste my time trying to reason with a person who is unreasonable right?

And hey, that's my presumption. Mebbe I caught you on a bad day, mebbe I'm being the ass here, it's entirely possible.

But this conversation is pretty much as pointless as vocal 3rd wave feminism. It's going around in circles, people occasionally getting mad, and the majority of the sift probably peaked in and decided they couldn't be fucked wading in among the 10 or so people dedicated to perpetuating the "conversation"... And of course it's not really accomplishing anything, we're all still being relatively civil to each other even if a bit terse...

The battle for equality isn't won, but it's pretty close (well, at least in the west, just forget about the majority of the worlds women who still live in conditions that make the 50's seem blissful...). 3rd wavers aren't fighting massive social injustice anymore, they are battling things like #gamergate and feedback against Sarkeesian, Tucker Max or that Return of Kings mob (who seem to be the biggest trolls on the planet but w/e).

Seriously, they are spending a lot of time and energy arguing with the lowest common denominators (who by and large love the attention). There used to be a time you could safely ignore the village idiot because, hey, he's a fucking idiot. Now, any dumbass can post on the internet and people will descend on them like the proverbial plagues of Egypt, followed shortly by supporters showing up. Not because those one offs are indicative of even a significant minority in broader society, but because it generates plenty of online hype to see "some guy" say something fucking awful and then the sides line up to start yelling at each other...

So I'm not overly concerned if we end up agreeing because in the grand scheme of things, it's also fairly pointless. We're both entitled to our opinions and they seem to be vaguely in the same park aka "equality good, hate and oppression bad", seems like a good place to stop.

A-Where did you speak about abuse?! I told a story of abuse (My mother in law being forced to have sex with animals, beaten burned, raped, etc.) And your direct answer (to her reliance on the church DUE TO THAT ABUSE) was "c) get through it with the help of family and friends like literally millions of others have done. " Ie., her abuse CAN be gotten over in your expert opinon. I say fuck that. It cannot be gotten over more so than a physical injury like brain damage, since it started so young and destroyed her thought process in life. In a way she is a socialized feral child (In a way, but I know there are huge differences.) People like me and Newt, thankfully, didn't fully get brain-fucked and so can work on social issues.

(Irrelevant topic; did you know abuse can cause schizophrenia without genetic factors? Amazing... (Carlson 2011).)

B-It is not unreasonable when you get into a public conversation on a topic that you comment directly on.

C-Yes, tell rape victims you know their plight, I am sure they will acknowledge your lack of knowing...I mean I can understand Doctors with years and years of study. Or here is a better analogy. Pat a black man on the shoulder who's child has been shot by a racist cop and say, "I know the feeling bud."

D-If you have to explain why what you said was different than those examples, it wasn't different enough.

What are you talking about? I said NOTHING about abuse.

I was talking about people leaving a church, and yeah, that is something that I have experience of.

Besides, one doesn't have to have personal experience of something to comment on it. In fact, it's often helpful to be able to address an issue without the emotional baggage. There's a reason we don't allow crime victims to set the sentence of criminals, for example.

It is utterly unreasonable to ask people about their private lives in a public discussion. If they choose to volunteer that information, fine, but it's not a prerequisite to participate in a discussion.

The right to freedom of panorama should sort it out, but in the US it depends if the H******** S*** is considered art or a building, as art is exempt from freedom of panorama and can be trademarked. Seems to me that if the owners of the H******** S*** seek to display their art upon the landscape then it should only be fair to allow people to use it in videos and photos. It's unreasonable to expect otherwise.

I see your point, and mostly agree, except with the caveat that police only have the right to use REASONABLE and NECESSARY force, and that only when it's required to gain compliance. That was absolutely not the case here. I think that's why such quick action has been taken against him.

When an officer uses unreasonable and/or unnecessary force, they have gone from upholding the law to breaking it themselves. When they do it against children, particularly against calm, nonviolent children, they have become outrageous child abusers rather than peace officers, and should be treated as such. At least, that's how I see it.
Perhaps I'm biased because at 4 years old I was lifted by the neck and thrown clear across the room for saying "no" to an adult. Looking back at that, it was definitely child abuse, but it did teach me the lesson that if you defy authority, even if authority is 100% in the wrong, you'll pay a price. A lesson worth learning, but a terrible way to teach it.

I do agree, disregarding his lawful command was a crime. I don't see how it required any violence to remedy, and I'm given hope by the fact that the school board and police have seen his actions as completely undefendable and have already taken steps to ensure at least HE doesn't repeat them, at least not with the authority of a badge.

I don't know if the right's stance on gun control is the hypocrisy I'd point out about their so called "pro-life" stance, but I'll get to the hypocrisy in a moment.

It is odd how after every mass shooting here, which means we get to hear it a lot, the political right always jumps on the "oh no, they are trying to take our guns away", "if guns kill people, why don't they try to ban cars which kill more people" and other memes when nobody is talking about banning guns or forcing everyone to register all the guns they own, let alone take guns away. Closing the gun show loophole (and all such laws proposed that would close it still left open the ability to pass guns to family members without a license or registration), allow the CDC to track gun violence... these aren't unreasonable requests. Even exempting the gun industry from the same liability laws we hold nearly every other industry to (with a huge notable exception to fracking... hmm... another one the right loves) seems fairly reasonable, though I guess I can semi see the concerns... of course said concerns go back to the fact that nearly anyone can get a gun quickly and easily. 30+ homicides a day, 50+ gun related suicides every day, 40+ accidental deaths every day, hundreds treated for gun assault injuries every day, thousands of crimes committed at gun point from rape to robbery and burglary, and the list goes on and on... I support one's right to own guns, including hand guns, but we need to admit there is a gun violence problem. And it isn't a heart problem, if Cain had a gun he'd have used a gun, a rock is what was available to him at the supposed moment of action. And it isn't a lack of Jesus problem as over 78% of people in the US general population and other far more democratic, first word, advanced economy, fully free will, countries like the Netherlands have far more Atheists than us, but have far less gun violence... less violence overall. It's not a video game problem, as those games are popular outside the US, and again no correlative rise in violence. (And yes, the UK violence rate is higher, but it isn't an apples for apples correlation, they define far more things into their national violent crime rates than we do, when all things are equaled out, they have a much smaller one.) So it's time that the right just admit there is an issue with guns and violence in this country.

But as I said, we don't need to point to the rights stance on guns to prove they aren't actually pro-life. Just point to the fact they are the ones who are most in support of the death penalty. Just point to the fact they are the most pro-war and are the loudest war hawks, despite the fact Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers" I guess they figure that means forcing everyone to the US's will, since somehow God anointed the US with special privilege above all other nations (after all the Bible mentions the eagle rising against the bear, which must be the US rising against the Soviets). Point out that they support stand your ground, somebody taking your nice new TV, stand your ground and turn that crime into a death penalty there in your home... of course Jesus said if somebody takes your coat to give your shirt too, not that I'm sure He was meaning to freely let people take all your stuff, but I can guarantee He wouldn't have been pro-stand your ground. They don't support having guaranteed affordable health care, or having government assistance for the needy and the poor. Apparently that life only matters while in the womb, the quality of life after that doesn't matter, and if they can make it worse for the child then they don't care, so long as their taxes don't help the child.

They aren't by any stretch of the imagination pro-life. They are anti-abortion. I think abortion is far from ideal, and should be a last option. The best option is the same thing that the women not having abortions have, affordable health care. Access to contraceptive options like IUDs (which don't stop fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterus which they try to claim) and the pill... and it doesn't matter if the pill itself is cheap, the doctor visit to get them and follow ups need to be affordable too... somehow the right really likes to blame women and hold them accountable for the pregnancy, when in fact it's the guy who should be blamed. If they don't want a pregnancy, then he should wrap it as soon as it comes out of the pants. No playing "just the tip" or anything else like that. Then dispose of properly, and ideally, don't rely on it as the sole method of birth control. So guarantee all people, including women, access to affordable health care. Give them their free choice of birth control and I'd say encourage the use of the IUD which has an amazingly low failure rate compared to other birth control methods... that is if she's going to use a contraceptive on her end. Don't make it a crime to have a miscarriage... which is some of the most asinine law proposals ever created... and rape is rape, no such thing as "legitimate" rape, I don't care if the Bible is into punishing women for being rape victims (a virgin not betrothed has to marry the rapist and he has to pay her father 50 shackles of silver for the father's loss or property and the couple may never divorce, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 or if she's in a city and betrothed then she has to be put to death Deuteronomy 22:23-24, a passage defended because it says "because she cried not", but how often do people ignore crimes or say they didn't see anything, heck people film others raping a passed out girl, so "because she cried not" is a poor excuse).

TLDR: The right are far from being pro-life far beyond gun control, they support war, they support the death penalty, they support stand your ground, they are against the government helping the needy and the poor, and are against a truly affordable health care policy that would largely eliminate the need for abortions in the first place.

I'm sorry, I often fail at getting my point across. My point with Cindy was that it seemed odd that you called him out as a fat guy, but I didn't think you would be OK with the same treatment of a woman. Kind of a 'what's good for the goose' argument is what I was going for.

Certainly average women are UNDER represented, but they are represented more all the time and certainly not absent. Gabourey Sidibe is on Empire, one of the higher rated dramas, just to name one non-skinny actress off the top of my head. It sounded to me like you were saying that ONLY pretty, thin, overtly 'sexy' women get screen time, and I think that's no longer true by far.

I'm sorry you think that about me. I, of course, disagree. If I was 'willfully blind about the facts', why would I discuss anything with anyone ever, or do any research on things I don't know about? I would know it all already and have nothing to gain from anyone. Because I don't always see things as you do does not make me 'willfully blind to the facts' IMO, but you're welcome to your own opinion.

Well, wait, didn't YOU just spread the 'unreasonable standard' about men in your first post when you said " ...when the only thing we get to see in the media are perfect beautiful men wearing tight clothing and makeup that extenuates their manliness, I won't complain as much."? That's how I took that statement, did I misunderstand?

I just thought Magic Mike (1&2) fit your above statement, not in any way did I mean to imply that it's a good movie. ;-)

I honestly don't understand your point about Cindy. I don't get the feeling that she is dancing off the pounds. This feels like a BBW jerk off vid. They do exist.

If she is celebrating her own sexuality, good for her.

As for your claim that I am blind to representations of women in the media, you have said that to me before. You were wrong before, you are wrong now. There are numerous studies that show that women are underrepresented in the media. There are numerous studies proving that women's movie and TV careers are severely circumscribed when they reach a certain age. Without breaking a sweat, I can name a dozen sitcoms starring fat men with slender to average wives and two that star(red) women of size -- Roseanne and Mike and Molly. And this just sitcoms.

I know there is nothing I can say about this subject, because I believe you to be willfully blind about the facts.

And yes, as I always do, I acknowledge that the unreasonable standards of beauty that women are held to is happening more and more to men. I do not think that is a good thing. It is a spreading cancer. Ignoring that is happens to women doesn't stop it happening to men.

And I hate Magic Mike I and II. Stupid plot, stupid dialogue, boring as shit and not enough dancing . The Full Monty now? OH yeah! Fat blokes, skinny blokes, gay blokes, old blokes, ginger blokes..... That is a movie that celebrates life and interpersonal relationships.

Grocery shopping has become too complicated lately it seems to me. Used to be not all that long ago that you just got what looked good at the big chain grocery store and then made the odd trip to specialist shops for particular things on occasion. Whole Foods does have some good stuff, but it's way too expensive to just buy everything there. Trader Joe's has decent quality and prices but very limited selection. The local hippy organic grocery store/coop is in a similar situation to Whole Foods but with different stuff, and then there is the still the big chain grocery store with good prices on things that don't really vary much in quality. Oh, and of course there are still the delis and butcher shops and whatever else for the particular things they do well. Also, they went and knocked down the Pick 'n' Save that was three blocks away and are building a Metro Mart, which in my experience is exactly the same thing but with fancier decor and higher prices.

I have like five different grocery lists now. So, the end result is that I actually have access to much higher quality food at not unreasonable prices and yet somehow I'm ending up eating frozen pizza a lot more than I used to when it was Pick and Save or nothing.

How is anyone making excuses for the police here?

So fucking what if he was trying to provoke a reaction? His reasons for filming the police like he did don't come into it at all. So what if the officers didn't like it and so what if he did it for this reason.

I don't see how any of this is relevant. This is a video of a person acting completely legally and within his rights and being arrested just because the police didn't like it.

So what if it's provoking, the police should be trained to be able to deal with a provocative situation. You know what would have ended this? The police doing their jobs and ignoring him. That's what should have happened.

Being rude isn't against the law. It's not OK for police to arrest someone for being rude. The only thing this guy was doing was filming the police and people think that's wrong? Or he didn't answer their questions? He's allowed to do that. It's OK. How can you say he was acting like a tool? He did nothing wrong.

The police are supposedly trained individuals. They shouldn't be reacting to provocation, especially when it's so passive as this example. This guy is hardly pushing his luck here. He made no threats to the officers, he didn't do anything even remotely violent or threatening he just exercised his rights. So the police didn't like it, so what?

Fucking apologists. The law is what it is and the police should be held to a high standard regarding it. They should do their job. Let's get this straight, what they did here was arrest someone just because they didn't like what he was doing, even though what he was doing was perfectly legal. That should disgust you, it really should. It shouldn't be OK because you think the guy was being a bit of a dick. That's not relevant because being a bit of a dick shouldn't get you arrested. It's only an excuse if you think that it's not unreasonable for the police to arrest people they just don't like.

Maybe it's easier to see why some people think he's a tool if you imagine that he hadn't been arrested. Let's say that this was a day before his action, and he tells you that he's going out to the FBI to film the building, all entrances, and the people coming and going. He tells you that he is doping this to test their reaction, and he expects the cops to interact with him, but that he won't say a single word to them until / unless they overstep their boundaries.

You would agree with him at that point, I assume, that what he's planning is legal, but wouldn't you also have a sense that maybe he was being a bit unreasonably provocative? That that's the 'tool' aspect of his perfectly legal action?

I guess this is where we'll just have to end up differing - I don't respect the system enough to go out of my way to fight every single battle I possibly can, and I don't necessarily admire those who do. I wholeheartedly believe that every citizen has a responsibility to pick their battles carefully or we'll never get anywhere, and I don't believe this was a well-chosen battle.

That said, I entirely agree that the cops here are more at fault, no question. They are in the wrong morally and professionally and they're being unreasonable tools - the guy with the camera is just being an unreasonable tool.

Of course it's unreasonable to say reason is becoming extinct. I would say that for the last 300 years or so, we've become amazingly reason-driven. There are probably more people alive today who are reasonable (who believe that the validity of their own and others actions is best judged by a measure of their rationality) than in all of human history.

As for your other questions:
1) Do I even have a bit of an analytical mind? Yes, in a jar, in the fridge.
2) Did I ever have history in school? Yes, on several occasions. We never covered Fox News though