I count 323.

Neat, but not nearly suicidal enough. The Me 323 on the other hand, now that's a one way trip.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

>> ^geo321:

319


323

*ban
Le google

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

*length=323

No one has the right to disobey a lawful order. You cannot have a rule of law that way. If it is an unlawful order, that is a different story. If you want to protest, you also have to be willing to take the heat, and to be civilly disobedient and risk arrest. What you're hoping for is to gain public support and enact some change in the mind of the public, which will hopefully led to a change in the system. That's the way it works. I don't buy that someones highfalutin ideals gives anyone the inherent right to defy the police. That's called anarchy. I feel the authorities here were not being entirely unfair, and did let them stay for a few days before asking them to leave. Why should people have the right to form impromptu tent cities and live in the public space for weeks on end? That's not a protest, that's called squatting.

I am speaking here of western style democracies. Totalitarian regimes are a different story. I believe God gives us certain inalliable rights, and if an authority is suppressing those rights, I believe we have right under God to transgress the earthly authority in those cases.

>> ^Kofi:
What you are saying is that if it is legal it is right. Legal positivism. If it is illegal then the police have the duty to respond with whatever power is within their means, not just what is appropriate.
Lets take that principle to its logical conclusion.
If the government says "You are not allowed to continue with the activity that you are doing. Therefore we are asserting our duty to protect the community at large and are going to forcefully prevent you from continuing in your unlawful act" Does this seem reasonable?
Google "Laws for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service"
This is the logical conclusion. What the protesters represent is a cause higher than that of the law. They are going about it in a peaceful manner with the minimal violation of laws and others rights (rights pertaining not to life, limb or property but of occupying public land. PUBLIC land).
If this is still unsatisfactory please ask why it is ok for police to do this and not ok for the lethal crackdowns we saw in Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Tunisia.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'll preface this with the statement that I feel that police brutality is on the rise and unchecked power is never a good thing, however
This video is not shocking. What is shocking to me is that people seem to think they can defy the police and get away with it. They had no right to be there, and they were told to leave and refused to go. So therefore, the police had the right to use reasonable measures to force them to leave. Were some cops using more force than necessary here? Probably so, but the protesters made the conscious choice to resist which gives a police officer the right to use force at their discretion. If you are going to use civil disobedience as a protest, you should expect to be arrested. If you are going to openly defy the police, you should expect a response. In civil society there is a rule of law. I don't see why anyone is shocked at the police enforcing the law on people who are breaking it. It doesn't matter how peacefully they were protesting; their right to protest became null and void when they decided to refuse to obey a lawful order.

Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. (Genesis 6:11-13)

It says all flesh, which would include animals. At that point the entire world had been overtaken by wickedness, so the children of the time were destined to grow up even worse than their parents. The animals, too, had their ways corrupted by their close contact with human beings. Basically, evil had reached a point of total saturation and God hit the reset button.

edit: Sorry I missed your question earlier. It isn't about punishment and reward. It is about right and wrong. If you're a wicked person who disregards the warnings because you value your autonomy to sin over doing what is right, you deserve what you get. You won't be able to say it wasn't made clear to you what would happen, nor will you be able to deny your guilt. You have no idea how terrible even one sin is, or what its effects and implications are. Just one wicked act could spawn many others, and effect many lives. You can see this effect when people duplicate crimes and reprobate behaviors that they witness others doing. It's not a gun to your head, it is the content of your character and what is in your heart; it is the imperative to do what is right and the consequences of failing to do so. God doesn't get any pleasure from punishing the wicked. Even still while we are sinners, God is patient with us because He desires all of His children to come to repentance.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

>> ^Grimm:
So you actually believe the was a point in time that EVERY living human was evil? Every man, woman, child and infant except for a single family?
Also why the need for this omnipotent being to destroy all living animals on the planet as well? What "law" of his did they break?>> ^shinyblurry:
God destroyed the entire world in a flood that left 8 people alive. God is sovereign over His creation and we are under His law, and His judgement. Specifically, His condemnation was against wickedness:
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."



>> ^Grimm:
So you actually believe the was a point in time that EVERY living human was evil? Every man, woman, child and infant except for a single family?
Also why the need for this omnipotent being to destroy all living animals on the planet as well? What "law" of his did they break?>> ^shinyblurry:
God destroyed the entire world in a flood that left 8 people alive. God is sovereign over His creation and we are under His law, and His judgement. Specifically, His condemnation was against wickedness:
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Xaielao:
>> ^newtboy:
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.

The real question is who is going to win between our zombie, insect and giant robot overlords?

Tsk, it's simple. Our insect zombie robots.


You beat me to that one.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
What was the "test" and how did this thing "pass" it? This was more of a demonstration.

Nature:According to a privacy-impact statement previously released by the DHS, tests of FAST involve instructing some people passing through the system to carry out a "disruptive act".
...
As for where precisely FAST is being tested, that for now remains a closely guarded secret. The DHS says that although the first round was completed at the end of March, more testing is in the works, and the agency is concerned that letting people know where the tests are taking place could affect the outcome.
/
I had quoted the youtube source description ("passes" the first round of tests), but I've changed my description to "completes" since that's more accurate.


Aha... (sorry, I couldn't be bothered with clicking links this morning.)

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

What was the "test" and how did this thing "pass" it? This was more of a demonstration.


Nature:According to a privacy-impact statement previously released by the DHS, tests of FAST involve instructing some people passing through the system to carry out a "disruptive act".
...
As for where precisely FAST is being tested, that for now remains a closely guarded secret. The DHS says that although the first round was completed at the end of March, more testing is in the works, and the agency is concerned that letting people know where the tests are taking place could affect the outcome.

/
I had quoted the youtube source description ("passes" the first round of tests), but I've changed my description to "completes" since that's more accurate.

That's just depressingly pedantic, rryjkyjdhu..

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything. Deliberately limiting Himself does not reduce that capacity. God is not the combination of every possible state of being. God is only good and not evil, for instance. God is not a combination of the two, he is just wholly good. Perfection is the overriding attribute here. Because it is more perfect to be wholly good instead of good and evil, He is just wholly good. Just as it is more perfect for God to limit Himself to give us free will than to not limit Himself and have puppets.



>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
"I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins"
This is a key passage about Gods omniscience. He can choose to limit Himself.
Genesis 2:15-17
And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”
God gave Adam and Eve permission to eat from any tree in the garden. That was their free will choice. He then told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge. That was His command. He also explained what would happen if they did eat it.
Now, a way He could limit His knowledge here and still know what He was doing is this.. Imagine that you're at fork in the road. For either of those two choices, God knows every possible outcome and how to handle it. He is prepared for your choice, but doesn't know which one you will choose. Is it because He couldn't know? No. It's because He set it up so we had a real choice, so He chose to limit Himself in some way which allows for our free choice. He is prepared for every possible outcome, but as to what it will be, He allows us to write the next chapter.
Ultimately, God wants us to obey Him because He knows what is best for us. He knows which road is the best while we don't. Unless we obey God, we may choose the worst path. Though we only obey God according to how much we love Him. Love is an act of will, so obedience is a free choice. It all comes down to love.
God wants to mold us from the ground up. He wants us to follow the best path every time. But we have to love and trust God first. We have to sit at His feet and learn because we don't know any better. That's why it is written:
Matthew 8:13
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
This is a very indepth issue..not easy to see all the angles. Yet, there is a cohesive explanation which is rooted in love. Of all the details, love is the most important one.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
If God is omniscient, then he knew exactly every action humankind would take from the time they were conceived until the end of eternity.
There is no free will if God is omniscient.


That's great, but if there's something that God doesn't know, even if he chooses not to know it, then by definition he is not omniscient.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by geo321.