Not quite sure what you're saying there. You can't compare a mobile device (which has an OS that's tuned to the hardware) with a Windows PC which has to support a huge variety of configurations. The keyboard issue is irrelevant.


>> ^jmd:

>> ^Deano:
Ha! Let's face it real buttons are better.

I beg to differ. I am tired of hardwired buttons. The home button is fine.. but I am glad everything else is on-screen.
The above video is something I have heard about happening to some iphones and such that are upgraded to 4.0, so while not all iphones experience it, some infact do. However up until this point, the itouch/iphone has managed a great user interface (even better when jail broken) and never do I experience the problems often found with running a PC operating system where programs run choppy and take seconds for buttons to respond just because you happen to be trying to work at the same time the OS is doing file system maintenance, swapping to page files, clearing up memory, or what ever operating systems do that take cycles away from the main program. As someone who is not thrilled with apple and has always been an ipod hater, I love my (jailbroken) iTouch.

>> ^Deano:

Ha! Let's face it real buttons are better.


I beg to differ. I am tired of hardwired buttons. The home button is fine.. but I am glad everything else is on-screen.

The above video is something I have heard about happening to some iphones and such that are upgraded to 4.0, so while not all iphones experience it, some infact do. However up until this point, the itouch/iphone has managed a great user interface (even better when jail broken) and never do I experience the problems often found with running a PC operating system where programs run choppy and take seconds for buttons to respond just because you happen to be trying to work at the same time the OS is doing file system maintenance, swapping to page files, clearing up memory, or what ever operating systems do that take cycles away from the main program. As someone who is not thrilled with apple and has always been an ipod hater, I love my (jailbroken) iTouch.

So then, religious beliefs are natural hardwiring like I said multiple times before seeing this? Weally? That is nice. And here I thought I was just an atheist apologist?

This means religious people are not really insane but "human." How quaint... So that means... the only difference between stupid destructive atheists and stupid destructive is that one goes the easy, natural way, the other learns past that, or thinks past it.

At least in the matters of god and such...in other matters, we be as crazy as anyone...

my head hurts

why did the cnn broadcast just say that our brains are hardwired for god because "that is how God made us"

why does dope defendadic celebrating his birth follow this story

why is a wannabe marxist polluting this thread

why did i drink tonight?



survival = life + adaptation

so "pigs" = survivors

therefore we = "pigs"

?

/disappear

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

There's nothing bloodthirsty or evil about biology and nature - just a cold striving and genetic competition devoid of higher thought. I do think it's a bit naive to think that we could overcome our hormone driven instincts easily.

If a terrorist held a gun to my daughter and also a Nobel Laureate working on a cure for cancer- and told me to pick who dies - you and I both know who my choice would be.

>> ^Crake:

^well the crakers' success comes at a price, as you well know. But if you're ready to pay it, I have a funny little browser game about extinct animals you might enjoy
- but in all seriousness, I have a hard time believing in that argument about mankind being hardwired for depravity. There are plenty of examples of depravity, sure, but does it necessarily follow that it was caused by a hardwired blood thirst? In my opinion most of the depraved stuff (like genocide) is caused by tension, ignorance and unfortunate feedback mechanisms between cultures/tribes/individuals.
I don't really believe "evil" exists in real life.
Weakness, shortsightedness, fear and ignorance, sure, but not a priori malice.
inb4 "you ignorant, naive little child, tsk tsk tsk"

^well the crakers' success comes at a price, as you well know. But if you're ready to pay it, I have a funny little browser game about extinct animals you might enjoy

- but in all seriousness, I have a hard time believing in that argument about mankind being hardwired for depravity. There are plenty of examples of depravity, sure, but does it necessarily follow that it was caused by a hardwired blood thirst? In my opinion most of the depraved stuff (like genocide) is caused by tension, ignorance and unfortunate feedback mechanisms between cultures/tribes/individuals.
I don't really believe "evil" exists in real life.

Weakness, shortsightedness, fear and ignorance, sure, but not a priori malice.

inb4 "you ignorant, naive little child, tsk tsk tsk"

>> ^KnivesOut:
Mind of child:
"The only way to get my daddy's attention and affection is to do all this crazy shit. Roger that."

At the same time he seems to be enjoying the bonding experience with his father. While I don't know if it's healthy for him or not, learning your father's trade out of the sheer need for his approval is an age old tradition. While sometimes it can be abused, you can't say it's necessarily a bad thing. In fact it might just be hardwired in us.

I firmly believe that an individual that has no function as you call it for love is your sociopaths... to me they don't seem to propagate so well within society....

You're very right. Sociopaths have a very hard time adjusting to life. They might be missing some of these hardwired conditions that we have. I'm not quite an expert on the subject, but it does make sense that somebody with so much trouble with social aspects of society will have a hard time propagating. Hence why we're not all sociopaths. It's usually a genetic mutation that stops at a generation or two. Unless something changes drastically in our environment around us, sociopathic people will never have an advantage to breeding over people that can practice social skills.

(gwiz&rotten)for me i don't think you actual believe what you write you just write to play the devil's advocate.....

I can assure you I'm not advocating the devil...that'd be just as worthless as advocating god. Yes I do "believe" what I'm saying. Namely that's just how I understand things based on my cursory knowledge of neurology, psychology, and evolution.

I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.

Bingo!

You treat the constitution like others (you perhaps also?) treat the bible... your one stop shop for everything. Everything begins and ends with one document and you'll be damned if any further discussion will be had because apparently that document is perfect. (Let's ignore the raft of amendments... they... um... just fine tuning and already perfect document aren't they?)

The Constitution limits government power and says any powers not expressly given to the federal mafia is given to the States. That balance is already long gone. If "you" wish to circumvent those limits, even and especially for "the common good", then you may as well admit you support a benevolent dictatorship where the thugs at the top can do anything they want as long as you FEEL they're doing the right thing, or they appear to be.

The Constiution is not a "living document" nor written on an Etch-a-Sketch. It is, however, simply ignored by the scum in the federal mafia. If an Amendment was needed to outlaw alcohol, why is there no proposed amendment mandating 'free' health care? Because the current shits are anarchists, or monarchists.

No one is saying that the US system is GOOD now at all. But what you DO have is the situation where private health companies are consulted BEFORE you get treatment to see if you will be covered for that treatment. THAT is absolutely insane.

And you're basing this massive dissatifaction on what, exactly? Or is the mythical "46 million" uninsured going to come out of the woodwork again?

Look, here in Australia we have public and private... public health guarantees you all the necessary health care you need, and you pay a levee on that in your taxes (Medicare levee), if you take out Private health care (as most do), then you don't have to pay that levee as you are paying your own way via the private insurer. You don't suddenly stop getting public health, just the hospitals get paid by the private insurer rather than the government. Also, private health care gives you elective benefits and better rooms in hospitals etc. (ie. your own room rather than shared). The deal is, you can get better 'extras' etc. surrounding core health care by being on private, but you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it... and that's the way it should be.

"But you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it."

You would be hard pressed to find average Americans dying in the streets due to a lack of health care. Like I wrote, 20 million illegal aliens seem to know where the emergency rooms are, even when the sign is written in English.

From wikipedia:

The health care industry is likely to be the most heavily regulated industry in the United States. A study published by the Cato Institute suggests that this regulation provides benefits in the amount of $170 billion but costs the public up to $340 billion.[159] The study concluded that the majority of the cost differential arises from medical malpractice, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, and facilities regulations. Part of the cost is attributed to regulatory requirements that prevent technicians without medical degrees from performing treatment and diagnostic procedures that carry little risk.

It appears that once again, the soaring costs of medical care can be largely attributed to government interference. (And trial lawyers, but that's another story).


It's perplexing that numbers of people claim religion is evil yet believe that a true source of goodness is a government program which people are forced to enroll in at gunpoint. There's some confusion that this recent Obamunist government intrusion isn't the same as mandatory "universal halth care" but that's where it will end up. The camel's nose is poking into the tent.

I didn't wish harm on you. I wished destitution on you (which doesn't have to physically harm you at all, just take your ego down a few notches). I wished that you ended up with no money and therefore be reliant on the very things that you think shouldn't exist, because apparently you lack a iota of empathy and are incapable of ever seeing how someone could end up poor and without help and need some help to get back on track. Sometimes, for some people such as yourself, the only way to get through that 'it's other people' mentality is for it to affect you directly.

Yes, you wished harm on me, but that's due to your "left wing brainwaves"as the socialist believes that when one person wins, another must automatically lose; that's why the scramble for an "equality of outcomes" is so important. This isn't Dicken's "A Christman Carol" and I'm not Scrooge. And because not everyone agrees with your one-size-fits-all mentality on this or that issue does not mean they they're A) automatically wrong and B) in need of an ego resizing. Don't worry, I've had hard times aplenty.


Seems to me the only thing missing from your plan is personal responsibility. Are smokers or fat folks given less priority care or charged more in Australia? And forgive me in advance for going here, but at what point under the government system does some bureaucrat say, "Your child ain't gonna make it anyway because such-and-such condition has a 20% survival rate" and cut off treatment, or the more expensive treatments. From my point of view, you should at least entertain the idea that giving the government power over life and death when they can't even deliver the mail is a serious risk. They're serving you at their convenience and if they decide to cut you off, you're in a lot more trouble than some insurance company which can be sued.

You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?

No, and no one is suggesting that the government should provide everyone with free everything.

There's a whole political system based on the idea that government should provide everyone with free everything, via the abolition of private property. And really, since no one is driving the train, it makes perfect sense for the communist to demand that everyone be fed for "free" all the time. Food is a more immediate and vital basic need than health care, isn't it? Even the healthy must eat to stay they way...so is "free" bread a 'right'?

What we're saying is access to healthcare should not be dictated by your bank balance. I, because I earn a good wage, should not be able to get a heart replacement if I need it, but let someone else die because they couldn't afford the operation. That just isn't right, and nowhere in the bible does it say anything about looking after only those who can afford it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it talks about taking care of the weak and needy.

Things cost money. Either you pay or someone else does. Your argument in a nutshell is that socialized medicine is less expensive, and in some ways---brace yourself---you might be right. As stated, I don't claim to have all the answers, but for America a completely government-run health care system (which is what the taxocrats are after) will be a disaster.

Um... you're several trillion dollars in debt for many, many reasons, not least of which is the trillions of dollars you spend on your damn military. You can't take anything you don't agree with and try to suggest THAT is why you're in debt... sorry, doesn't work.

The military is a tiny slice of the US budget compared to all the "free" social programs. We don't have the money to pay for all of the "free" goodies we have now, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Someone has to pay for all this stuff. Under socialized health care is it "fair" that the healthy guy with no major medical problems gets little return on his health care taxes while the fat smoker spends two years in a hospital bed before expiring?

And in regards to those that would have made it one way or another... not necessarily so at all, although you'd LOVE to think so, because that's the right wing brain.

"Successful people will always be successful with no help from anyone else". I said no such thing, but I will say this: government is the problem more often than not, and per your friend, your government system could just as easily and cheerfully kept him on the dole to suit its own purposes. Apparenlty he made a choice which brought him desired results. Which brings me to another point: some people are beyond helping, they will fk up everything all the time by constantly making the wrong choices no matter how much help you give them. There's no reason to hurt such people more than they hurt themselves, but there's also no reason to let them game the system forever.

Huh? You've given up again... you've obviously got some hardwired words in your brain that are 'bad':
'Socialism' = bad
'Big Government' = bad
without really thinking through what you're saying.

It must be cultural. Americans--the real ones--don't trust authority. Our government was founded by revolution and rebellion against the idea of kings, or ten thousand pint-sized would-be kings holding clipboards.

Saying that a government can turn around and deny care is, well ridiculous when you're comparing it to private companies that do it ROUTINELY. If government does it (please do give me examples where they have... hmmm? I can pull out stupendous amounts of private health examples)

Government consider plans to deny NHS treatment to smokers and obese

Anger over NHS restrictions for osteoporosis treatment

Vulnerable And Frail To Get Substandard Medical Care, Australia

Australia's health care system basically 'broke'

Left-wing socialist ideals have given you a certain perspective not shared by all. Your "culture", like many in the world, believes that the group is more important than the individual.

I'm sayin' that sooner or later, that belief will bite you on the buttocks, because the operators of such systems remain human. Less government = better.

The basis of the idea that every human being is entitled to "free" health care is a made-up "right" based on nothing. Even among the world's major religions' mandates to selflessly help others there is no call to establish gigantic government entities to take care of the public.

It's repugnant to suggest that because one does not fall to his knees in praise of The System, one then must automatically be for suffering or letting others starve.

Government is a necessary evil that creates nothing and can only take by force and shuffle around what already exists. The answers to the health care 'crisis' will be found among the people, not bureaushits.

-----------------------
-----------------------

While sweeping floors is unskilled labour, I think I'd be affected more by having nobody clean the areas around where I lived than if the brain surgeons stopped their work. Without anyone removing rubbish all the time, the rat infestations and associated disease would probably harm and kill more people than brain surgeons save.

Don't underestimate the importance of core workforce like cleaners.

I'm not berating unskilled labor, but doesn't the medical student with half a million dollars in loans and 10 years of college study deserve more financial reward for their efforts? The socialist says, 'No, doctors' labor is a publicly-owned commodity whereas other occupations are not.'

-----------------------

If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.

Canada doesn't do asylum based on illness, that's reserved for other things. We do however bring people back into Canada from around the world who actually need medical care and can't get it in 2nd and 3rd world countries for treatment all the time. That aside, if you show up in Canada and require critical care for some emergency condition. You'll get it. Whether or not you'll have to pay for it(being that you're out of country and a non-payee into the system) is another question altogether different. Healthcare isn't free here either, that's where that 50% tax rate comes in along with country wide equalization payments. Since Canada already deals with Americans, and other foreign nations entering the country for healthcare, I'm sure you can figure out how much of a strain the puts on the system. And yes, there's a special division relating to healthcare fraud from non-Canadian nationals in every province.

Thank you for this information.

>> ^quantumushroom:
You amaze me with your complete lack of looking into ANYTHING QM.
I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.


Bingo!

You treat the constitution like others (you perhaps also?) treat the bible... your one stop shop for everything. Everything begins and ends with one document and you'll be damned if any further discussion will be had because apparently that document is perfect. (Let's ignore the raft of amendments... they... um... just fine tuning and already perfect document aren't they?)



Have bothered AT ALL to look at other countries that do healthcare a SHITELOAD better than the US? How do you not think it's fair to provide necessary healthcare to everyone in your country? Under what warped logic do you think that only those that can afford it should be able to live, while those that can't die?
How does that work?


Life isn't fair and no amount of government force will make it fair. I wonder if you lefties even know what's going on in America. Socialized medicine practically exists NOW. WTF is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? S-Chip? You'd have to work pretty hard to not get the care you need, especialy if 20 million Mexican illegals are getting it.

No one is saying that the US system is GOOD now at all. But what you DO have is the situation where private health companies are consulted BEFORE you get treatment to see if you will be covered for that treatment. THAT is absolutely insane. Look, here in Australia we have public and private... public health guarantees you all the necessary health care you need, and you pay a levee on that in your taxes (Medicare levee), if you take out Private health care (as most do), then you don't have to pay that levee as you are paying your own way via the private insurer. You don't suddenly stop getting public health, just the hospitals get paid by the private insurer rather than the government. Also, private health care gives you elective benefits and better rooms in hospitals etc. (ie. your own room rather than shared). The deal is, you can get better 'extras' etc. surrounding core health care by being on private, but you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it... and that's the way it should be.


And your intro also speaks of being simple minded also:
Doesn't everyone deserves a free home
There is such a thing as government housing, and it's used by people who have fallen on hard times until they can afford something better. The houses are never fantastic, and you wouldn't want to stay in them, but they provide shelter while you try to pick yourself up... Of course you rally against such ideas and think they'll only be populated by the lazy, and how dare they get a roof over their head when you work for all you have...
I don't object to safety nets, but you know and I know that's not what we're talking about here. Also, with the Christianity bashing that goes on here at liberalsift, I wonder where the morality of the left exists on its own merit? Was every atheist born knowing 'the right thing to do'?

Wah? Huh? I don't get the point of this comment at all. If you're going down that religious path of 'well, I have this book that tells me my morals, and what is right and wrong... you must have no morals and not know what's right and wrong because you don't have a book', then sorry, but that's an insanely stupid tree to be barking up. If you truly believe that you would do 'bad things' if you didn't have the fear of god punishing you for breaking his commandments for doing so then you are a 'bad person'. Most of us don't do 'bad things' because we don't want to hurt other people or make life worse off for others, not due to some selfish fear for ourselves.


Um... ok, if you don't think there's a need for 'soup kitchens' and other such ways for people who have become destitute, then I would LOOOOOVE for you to end up jobless sometime and not have any family support, and then you can say there should be nowhere for those without money to be able to find shelter and food.
I'd friggen love it.
Well that's just fucking wonderful. With all the shit you've been through, you'd rather just wish harm on others that disagree with you, eh?

I didn't wish harm on you. I wished destitution on you (which doesn't have to physically harm you at all, just take your ego down a few notches). I wished that you ended up with no money and therefore be reliant on the very things that you think shouldn't exist, because apparently you lack a iota of empathy and are incapable of ever seeing how someone could end up poor and without help and need some help to get back on track. Sometimes, for some people such as yourself, the only way to get through that 'it's other people' mentality is for it to affect you directly.


You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?


No, and no one is suggesting that the government should provide everyone with free everything. What we're saying is access to healthcare should not be dictated by your bank balance. I, because I earn a good wage, should not be able to get a heart replacement if I need it, but let someone else die because they couldn't afford the operation. That just isn't right, and nowhere in the bible does it say anything about looking after only those who can afford it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it talks about taking care of the weak and needy.


automobile No, but free/heavily subsidized public transport works wonders for actually being able to get to... oh, I dunno... jobs.
I'm not against local public transportation. In some places it works, in others it's been an expensive disaster. And it's not my point. But if you think people with no car have a right to a "free" bus, so be it.
No, people who have no access to their own transport through not being able to afford it, despite their best efforts, should be able to use public transport to get around. If you deny people the ability to get around, how are they ever going to get to the jobs to make the money to be able to pay for these things themselves?



(plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?
Now you're just being a douche. You've got no concept of how any of this works do you? You think that those at or under the poverty line just LOVE living in government housing and surviving on handouts... hell, why bother working when life is so grand hey?
You're an idiot. People don't want to remain like that, people never want to GET like that, but some people do, some through no real fault of their own (some by their own fault, but so what). The idea is, you give them a hand through those times until they can once again become a constructive member of society. And people WANT to get a good job and be able to buy their own home/car and feel like they've been productive. I don't know anyone who enjoys relying on the handouts. But I sure as fuck know people who HAVE HAD to at one time or another and are bloody glad those things were in place to catch them during the tough times.
And some of these people now work for multinational companies in technical roles and are doing very well for themselves... because they were helped during the rough patches.
It ends up costing LESS in the long run you know.
Yeah, that's why we're several trillion dollars in debt. I have another theory about those success stories: those people might have made it whether there was government aid available or not.

Um... you're several trillion dollars in debt for many, many reasons, not least of which is the trillions of dollars you spend on your damn military. You can't take anything you don't agree with and try to suggest THAT is why you're in debt... sorry, doesn't work.

And in regards to those that would have made it one way or another... not necessarily so at all, although you'd LOVE to think so, because that's the right wing brain. "Successful people will always be successful with no help from anyone else". Which is a load of crap. SOME people pick themselves up completely independently and become successful with no external help, but ALMOST ALL have support from many places. A particular case I'm thinking of (a friend), spent years being horrendously insecure in themselves and doing f-all for his career and being effectively 'a drain' on society as you would say. But now he earns a good wage and is giving back to society through his taxes, so therefore paying back for his time. He needed that time being supported to get out of that rut. If there was no support... well, I don't know what would have happened to him, but it wouldn't have been nice.


Also... it'd be friggen hilarious if you got some illness that cost an enormous amount of money to treat, and your private health care provider decided that it wasn't covered (as they like to do)... then you'll be bleating that there should be public health.
If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.
If you take nothing else away from this: I don't pretend to have all the answers, while Big Government tyrants do. I oppose socialism in general and in particular this health scam the Obamunists are trying to pass as quickly as possible before the people realize what they thought were brownies are really dog turds.
A government big enough to pay for your kid's "free" health care is also big enough to say, "You're over the limit for treatment costs. Back of the line."


Huh? You've given up again... you've obviously got some hardwired words in your brain that are 'bad':
'Socialism' = bad
'Big Government' = bad
without really thinking through what you're saying.

Saying that a government can turn around and deny care is, well ridiculous when you're comparing it to private companies that do it ROUTINELY. If government does it (please do give me examples where they have... hmmm? I can pull out stupendous amounts of private health examples), then they have public outcry from the country to contend with because it's health care that WE are all paying for. If a private company denies treatment then you'd just say 'Well... it's a free market, go with another provider'.

I really think that you've been taught to believe these right wing mantras but, like most right wingers, you haven't thought through the consequences of those actions AT ALL... You run on an endless loop of 'hard work will get you what you need', whereas we run on one that says 'a fair go for everyone'. Your loop ignores how people get started in the first place, how people need help to get up from being poor and uneducated and pull themselves up to be really productive members of your country. You think that anyone who can't afford to go to university or get healthcare or have a car only lacks those things purely through their own laziness. We think that maybe you help people to have the opportunity to become educated and not be sick, and maybe that gives them a better chance to spend time learning a trade and becoming skilled and earning a great wage and getting their family moving on and up rather than staying poor and a drain on society for ever.

>> ^westy:
racism seems absurd to me , How anyone could be religious/racist is beyond me i guess its pore education and lack of critical thinking that allows these mental desises to persist.


Actually it's physical.

The amygdala experiences increased activity when faces of a different race are observed. This is exemplified in multiple studies, the landmark of which is this one: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190212

Basically the brain triggers a "fight or flight" response when seeing a person of a race other than one's self. This is hardwired through evolution.

"I'm afraid of [foo], therefore [bar] must be true" is not an intellectually sound position and I would call it cowardice. Believing because you're afraid of the alternative is is just being a coward.

I'll totally give you that people have trouble giving up personal beliefs, but mostly these beliefs have never been really challenged be the person (that's why they call it faith) and when they start doing that, the belief must stand on its own or fall. Some people just go "no, it stands" in spite of the evidence, which is just idiocy, stubbornness and/or regret.


>> ^Psychologic:
^ I don't know that I would call Bleach's belief in God "cowardice". I would call it "unsupported" and I think he would agree with that, but when you start talking about our understanding of modern psychology (which is a large part of beliefs like this) then terms like "coward" are far too simplistic in their meaning.
Being comfortable in secular beliefs is far more complicated than understanding the logic behind it. Comfort and "existential meaning" are as much biological as they are psychological. We are hardwired to be very uncomfortable with the idea of no longer existing, and overcoming that takes a very long time for many. Bleach doesn't seem to believe anything that is contradicted by science, so I have a hard time condemning his reluctance to let go of the idea of an afterlife.
He didn't say God exists, he said that he's having trouble letting go of his personal belief, and I think that is something that a lot of people go through (I certainly did).

>> ^rottenseed:
You're missing one pretty major detail. We're animals. Sometimes we react with our instincts (ever heard of fight or flight). This kid probably didn't sit there and think "should I run or should I not". He probably was in a rough area and saw 2 people running after him and reacted. Even if he did recognize them as cops, if he was scared he might run without discrimination. It's hardwired into our heads. You can't punish somebody for instinct. Now he's in a coma. Furthermore, You can't put the law above somebody's safety and well-being, Judge Dredd.

Not missing the point at all. Sitting there, and thinking is what actually makes us different from an animal(that kicks in with fight or flight). That's that whole point behind that big juicy brain. Having been in situations similar to it more than once and on both sides, if you're actually using your brain then it's not that hard.

Might come as a shock, but you know police, firefighters and paramedics as well as other people do put the law above a persons safety every day. Otherwise they'd never get their jobs done. Scary thought isn't it?

>> ^Mashiki:
>> ^Drax:
If you're thinking of becoming a cop, take a moment to ask yourself, "Am I complete asshat?".

Apparently I'm a complete asshat. By the way, if a officer yells at you to get your ass on the ground. Do it, you won't end up with your face being bounced off a wall. Pretty simple stuff isn't it?
Don't raise your hands, don't smile and look pretty. Just drop to the ground, saving yourself the problem. If you're innocent great. If you're not, you're saving yourself, and the cops the trouble of having to chase you down. Probable cause is just that, while I'm sure there's some idiots here who don't understand the term, or how it relates to an incident like this. I really do feel bad for you, because once it's gone. Might as well go back to mob rule.
Then again if the need hadn't been so high, and the qualifications so low in a lot of states several years ago, you might have a higher quality and standard of officers.
Man that whole active listening, and following instructions thing is pretty hard some days.

You're missing one pretty major detail. We're animals. Sometimes we react with our instincts (ever heard of fight or flight). This kid probably didn't sit there and think "should I run or should I not". He probably was in a rough area and saw 2 people running after him and reacted. Even if he did recognize them as cops, if he was scared he might run without discrimination. It's hardwired into our heads. You can't punish somebody for instinct. Now he's in a coma. Furthermore, You can't put the law above somebody's safety and well-being, Judge Dredd.

>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^Ornthoron:
Funny how almost all mammal babies seem to have curiousity hardwired in their system.

In my opinion:
Inherently we are all curious and innocent at birth, our own personal will is the only thing that keeps us from becoming part of the curmudgeon of society.


LoL, I read it as cumdungeon. I gues I'm spoiled.