@csnel3
@kulpims
@GeeSussFreeK
@NetRunner
@draak13
@gwiz665
@budzos
@Bidouleroux
@everyone else here
And while it is true the vulcans have emotions which if left unchecked can perpetuate acts of chaos, even logic could condone the acts of intervention under certain circumstances. Like what was mentioned earlier with transporting the inhabitants of an entire colony to another planet. Logic would dictate that saving a lives rather than having them face extinction, especially when taking such action takes minimal effort on the part of those who intervene is a far better outcome than ignoring them and moving on. some of those ants Q steps on could have made great stides, some Q are even cautious enough to look out for ant hills so they would not step on them. Remember that Q himself does not represent the continuum and the entire Q as a whole.

Now just so I am entirely clear here, I am not against the principles of the prime directive, it does have its importance. But it seems whenever this debate is drawn both parties in which are for or against the directive are under the impression the directive has to be the one sided stance. That is what I am against. It should indeed be a directive, a consideration to keep in regard, but upholding to a non debatable stature leaves no room for leniency, any more than abandoning it and following a reckless moral compass as those pro directive would imagine it to be. What the directive needs is a middle ground. A set of further principles which leaves room for making a rational and logical decision to intervene under appropriate circumstances.

I was going to save this for a future sift, but this seems like the best time to place this:



I fear that point the most. Is it really free thinking if everyone shares the same idea? Unity may bring about a positive force, but it will always need quarrelsome debate to establish its principles, When people need to resort to an order, to establish the prime directive as a one way street, is it unified logic, or a dictated mindset? And if it is either one, what happens when everything else becomes a one way street? even in the optimistic future Roddenberry Imagined, his future did not have a perfect race. Every race had its own strengths and weaknesses. And some of their strengths to others seemed like their weaknesses, but when they worked with and learned with one another, it provided a harmony of thought, principle and the idea that even Their "enlightened" principles needed adjustment from others.

So my point to all this is the prime directive should be seen as a recommended precaution which leaves room for debate, not a dogma, and certainly not something that should be taken lightly. With that said, I think I am past the point of sharing the video, and this should really be moved to sift talks so we can further *discuss this in greater detail.

>> ^jmd:
The guy might have been a total ass, but whats with the faggot police men swarming him after he peacefully exited the car and was hand cuffed? Jumping over the car and running around as if he might get away... everyone in this video should be shot for being to stupid to live. Ok I'm tired and I am being bitchy, but seriouse, its 20 against one.. and hes hand cuffed.. GTFO and raid the local dunken donuts.


Sorry, but with this guy I'll give the cops the benefit of the doubt. It looked to me as though he was beginning to resist arrest after they pulled him out, and frankly, who knows what he was doing based on the footage. It's too far away and too undetailed. They didn't seem to do anything inappropriate, just maybe a bit excessive in number. If you're a police office and you've just been through all that, you're probably inclined to take every precaution, and I would think no one could fault you for that.

As a Rider, to me this is a great vid because it illustrates that you can be as prepared as you want but the dangers still exist.

Drivers don't see motorcycles - It's a fact!
A cyclist can take all the precautions in the world but they are still sitting ducks out there.

When I ride - I hold by one simple rule.
All other vehicles are trying to hit you - don't give them that chance.
This means: NEVER ride in a blind spot
Always assume that car at the intersection is going to pull out in front of you.
Peripheral vision is reduced in a helmet, take the time to look properly.
Always Ride with traffic, cars are not pylons to weave through.
Hold your lane - ride on the inside (not the shoulder side) of the road.
Avoid tunnel vision, like in a car, always watch everything - you need ten times the alertness on a bike!

And yes, we all know it was fake - no one claimed it wasn't - Funny? maybe not, but it still makes a point.
As a non-German speaker, maybe this is one time where language barrier enhances the video, we don't get caught up on unimportant things like diction and just see the message!

But there is always the possibility that she could sneak online somewhere else or when her parents weren't watching. There is no way to absolutely foolproof against your kids doing something stupid. Sure, the parents didn't even take the minimum precautions, but the tragedy that struck could have happend anyway.

Is the point you're making that its okay that she received death threats and had a lot of harassment because her parents failed to protect her properly? Or are you blaming her directly because she automatically needs to take responsibility for whatever she does at whatever age? Neither of these alternatives feel very convincing to me.

She made some bad choices, she said things she shouldn't have said, she might even have done things utterly stupid. But in no way could she at 11 understand the full depth of what she was doing and what kind of people she was dealing with.

I read some discussions involving you here on the sift, and I think people who didn't know you or know what you had done came out and judged you and it hurt, and you hadn't realized how your actions would be perceived by others and couldn't understand the reaction and/or backlash that you had to face. If that hurt you, you should have at least an inkling of understanding about how hurtful the combined effort of 4chan would be able to utterly destroy someone. I cannot bring myself to see any humor in it.

I don't know, I recently posted a horrible video of israelis killing palestinians. I thought it was fun, so maybe Im just full of shit. It's possible. But I feel sorry for this girl.

>> ^gwiz665:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chtierna" title="member since September 25th, 2008" class="profilelink">chtierna she may be 11 years old, but her father certainly isn't. If he payed attention, this would never have happened. Posting things on the internet is like posting it in the newspaper, except more people can read it - how do you think people would feel if she made a letter to the editor saying she wants to "put a glock in your mouth and make a brain slushie" and post naked pictures of herself on page 6?
Freedom, like the internet, comes with responsibility. If you're not adult enough to realize that responsibility, then you definitely shouldn't use it. The parents, as always, are to blame for the behavior of the kids.
She's like a stupid tourist who wants to get her picture taken with a cuddly wuddly panda bear, kicks it, and gets her face bitten off. I don't hate her, I feel sorry for her. And I laugh derisively in her general direction.

>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^FNORDcinco:
When was the last time this guy slept!?

never. he always watches his back...in a humorous way and i'm pretty sure plenty of people in many gov't would want to see him dead.
i'd be interested to know his personal computer setup, what kind of encryption and security precautions he takes.

You'll never find out.

security through obscurity is not security.

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^FNORDcinco:
When was the last time this guy slept!?

never. he always watches his back...in a humorous way and i'm pretty sure plenty of people in many gov't would want to see him dead.
i'd be interested to know his personal computer setup, what kind of encryption and security precautions he takes.


You'll never find out.

>> ^FNORDcinco:

When was the last time this guy slept!?


never. he always watches his back...in a humorous way and i'm pretty sure plenty of people in many gov't would want to see him dead.

i'd be interested to know his personal computer setup, what kind of encryption and security precautions he takes.

It seems as if the governor were causing delays and saying the opposite of what is true, they could just simply declare him a threat to the people. Seems like if someone "in charge" of the situation whether it's the president or an military body/individual could write a clear letter stating the resources he has at his disposal and giving him a couple days to come up with a plan. If he starts delaying again, take initiative and remove him from the equation and place a small group of representatives from the areas actually affected in charge of a plan..and helping them carry it out while the governor looks the fool.

Because surely any action to clean up any of the oil is a good action, as long as the people doing the tasks are outfitted properly to maintain their health and safety. If the air is potentially toxic, use appropriate masks or respirators. If the ground is toxic, make certain they use proper suits and coverings to prevent exposure. If the governor said he wasn't deploying the troops because they didn't have those items available for that many people to keep them safe from exposure, I would believe it. But since he hasn't stated any such thing, they need to re-examine any information he may or may not be aware of and take extra precaution with those who are in direct contact or close proximity to potentially life threatening toxins carried in the oil, water, and soil now.

Worst possible thing they could do is continue letting tourists swim in this oily water and not be certain that there are no health risks in doing so. If the deployments are scaring tourists off, well good on them...when those states who only had 58 people out there helping have tourists coming down with respiratory illnesses and other things similar to Exxon volunteers...they'll wish they had scared tourists off.

Aside from the profanity, that's about the most sensible summation I've seen so far on this whole kerfuffle lamp. The blockade is there to prevent arms smuggling to terrorists. Would it be nice if Isreal didn't do this? Sure, but wake me up when the Palestinians start abhorring violence and the need for Isreal's security precautions goes away. Isreal sets up the blockade and a bunch of hippies run it. It doesn't take rocket science to predict that there are going to be morons on these boats who are looking for trouble. Isreal should have been better prepared for this. So far I've seen nothing that required firing on these boatniks, aside from their own stupidity for deliberately provoking one of the most no-nonsense military organizations on the planet.

>> ^reiwan:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^reiwan:
>> ^volumptuous:
"Could have been" is not a very good justification for militarized police terrorizing citizens.

They go off of the information that they have, and their level of force they use is indicative of that. Hind sight is always 20/20. Drug dealers have lots of drugs. Drug dealers also have weapons. Nobody would be saying anything if this ended up being the largest drug bust in Columbia this year.

You could apply this argument to ANYTHING.
Yes, i pulled the guy over because one of his tires was bald. Yes i shot him when he put his hand in his pocket - he could have had a grenade in there. No one would be saying anything if he'd turned out to be an undiscovered serial killer.
If i should have a dog, is his life REALLY forfeit if for any reason whatsoever authorities should suspect that i am a drug dealer? They break my door down and as a precaution kill something... REALLY?
How about using your argument back on you:
If the police broke in and the dog killed a policeman, nobody would be saying anything if the policeman had been a burglar.

Do most people who have bald tires have weapons or are associated with having weapons? Your argument is illogical. As is your second one. There is a certain threat when dealing with people who choose to participate in illegal activities, anything from drug dealing to you name it. When you do this, you're forcing "the man" to come to the situation at a certain level.
I'm not saying what happened was right or wrong. I'm mainly trying to make the point that everyone is basing their opinion on a short video and a blurb of text about what happened. There is a lot more to the situation that you don't know than just those two things. And instead of being an armchair critic, why dont you try to think about the situation as a whole, rather than whats placed in front of you.


The argument IS MEANT to be illogical because i believe YOUR argument to be illogical. I'm glad you've seen the point, though i'm not sure you realised it was the point.

The second argument isn't illogical.

And one more time, your argument straight back at you - we are BOTH armchair critics in this situation. You're an armchair critic RE: the video, you're an armchair critic RE: me. Neither of us know the whole story, we are left with our gut reactions.

If you believe that authorities should be allowed to kill or destroy things we own based on a hunch, a tip, or "intelligence" - see weapons of mass destruction - all of which as we can see can turn out to be wrong, more fool you.

I would rather a hundred drug dealers get away than one incident like this occur. In fact, i'd rather let people use the drugs they want to use, allow them to live their lives as they see fit. We can deal with the crimes as they occur, not invent new crimes (drug taking) to prevent the possibility of further ones (theft to fund drug taking). That's a thought crime.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^reiwan:
>> ^volumptuous:
"Could have been" is not a very good justification for militarized police terrorizing citizens.

They go off of the information that they have, and their level of force they use is indicative of that. Hind sight is always 20/20. Drug dealers have lots of drugs. Drug dealers also have weapons. Nobody would be saying anything if this ended up being the largest drug bust in Columbia this year.

You could apply this argument to ANYTHING.
Yes, i pulled the guy over because one of his tires was bald. Yes i shot him when he put his hand in his pocket - he could have had a grenade in there. No one would be saying anything if he'd turned out to be an undiscovered serial killer.
If i should have a dog, is his life REALLY forfeit if for any reason whatsoever authorities should suspect that i am a drug dealer? They break my door down and as a precaution kill something... REALLY?
How about using your argument back on you:
If the police broke in and the dog killed a policeman, nobody would be saying anything if the policeman had been a burglar.


Do most people who have bald tires have weapons or are associated with having weapons? Your argument is illogical. As is your second one. There is a certain threat when dealing with people who choose to participate in illegal activities, anything from drug dealing to you name it. When you do this, you're forcing "the man" to come to the situation at a certain level.

I'm not saying what happened was right or wrong. I'm mainly trying to make the point that everyone is basing their opinion on a short video and a blurb of text about what happened. There is a lot more to the situation that you don't know than just those two things. And instead of being an armchair critic, why dont you try to think about the situation as a whole, rather than whats placed in front of you.

>> ^reiwan:

>> ^volumptuous:
"Could have been" is not a very good justification for militarized police terrorizing citizens.

They go off of the information that they have, and their level of force they use is indicative of that. Hind sight is always 20/20. Drug dealers have lots of drugs. Drug dealers also have weapons. Nobody would be saying anything if this ended up being the largest drug bust in Columbia this year.


You could apply this argument to ANYTHING.

Yes, i pulled the guy over because one of his tires was bald. Yes i shot him when he put his hand in his pocket - he could have had a grenade in there. No one would be saying anything if he'd turned out to be an undiscovered serial killer.

If i should have a dog, is his life REALLY forfeit if for any reason whatsoever authorities should suspect that i am a drug dealer? They break my door down and as a precaution kill something... REALLY?

How about using your argument back on you:
If the police broke in and the dog killed a policeman, nobody would be saying anything if the policeman had been a burglar.

Do you usually strew grit on the roads in wintertimes? Because it looks like they've been plowing, but it's hard to make out if they've taken additional precautions.

GSF, man, I don't even know where to begin. Here it is from the top I guess.

"I approach the law as a means of maximizing freedoms and minimizing evils."

I approach the law similarly. The question is always in the details. The disagreement is always on where exactly the minimum lies. You clearly think we are way past it. Frankly, while I agree in some instances, in many I feel we haven't gone far enough. Financial regulation, for instance, would be one of those areas. As for airport security specifically, I think we are about right on. In the end, we probably both have reverence for the wisdom of our forefathers in creating a mechanism for the resolution of grievances we may have about specifics. In this particular case, the kid broke the agreed upon rules.

"It would be akin to them taking over security at the movies, or at your local shopping mart."

No, it would be more akin to them taking over security on interstate highways, or on our border. Airports are interstate commerce at its purest, and the constitution gives the federal government clear authority to regulate it.

"And it isn't just a few dollars, it is billions...and I don't even fly that often anymore but yet still I pay. "

I think you mean billions between all of us, as you don't have billions of dollars. In which case, yes it is a few dollars. It isn't like the government has nationalized the airlines (yet... I wish they would provide a public option at least).

"An airport is NOTHING like the Pentagon."
In a way you're right. It isn't really like the Pentagon. It isn't really classified to the same degree. It is, however, like a border or an interstate highway. While it generally is okay to film in these sorts of places (like it is generally okay in an airport). It is not okay however, to have people systematically casing the security detail. Especially not while broadcasting it to unknown or otherwise undisclosed recipients. It's not rocket science. It's common sense. If he busted out his camera and took a picture of his family getting on the plane, he would not have been hassled.

"An airport is completely private in nature."
If you want to argue instead that airports are private, go right ahead. The only problem is, then your right to film and distribute without express permission goes out the window.

"Secondly, I can't honestly believe you think talking about how dumb not allowing blankets on a plane is as some kind of security risk."
He didn't talk about it, he asked her if the policy existed. That was exactly the kind of behavior she was told to look out for. That, combined with systematic filming of the security detail, suggests that he was investigating the viability of some sort of plot. Given the grave cost of a security breach, and the relatively minor inconvenience he experienced, I think the search was warranted.

"There is a difference between someone who is a threat and someone who is being petulant."
He certainly was being petulant. That doesn't mean he wasn't a threat. The quick search (not even any rubber gloves!) verified that he was not in fact a threat. Then they let him go, and let him be as petulant as he wanted, while taking the necessary precautions in case they are wrong.

"I don't know if you ever had any run ins with the police, it doesn't sound like it."
I used to run with a bunch of anarchists when the Iraq war broke out. We had our own special investigator. We would do things like lead thousands of people onto main street at rush hour every week, shutting it down every friday for months leading up to the war in a fair sized city. We, as the handful of organizers, would stand on the perimeter of the mass facing the police so that we would be first arrested. The cops are just people man. With a little social decency you can avoid getting hassled. This kid brought it upon himself.

"I have also known people like these officers who forget what their job is."
And those officers themselves should be dealt with. They don't necessarily reflect policing in general.

Well, you know, he doesn't need to be sued for lack of safety precautions now.