a "police officer" isn't a race nimrod, but nice try pretending to be victimized again.

and yeah, singling out videos of black crimes in an effort to, in your mind, prove that they're somehow inherently more violent is precisely the definition of racism.

rac·ism
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

doesn't get more black and white (pun intended) than that.

but hey, whatever, since it seems that blatant racism is no longer a bannable offense here. go nuts with your racist self.

post your videos son...please

I feel like the problem isn't necessarily religion, but rather dogma. It just so happens that religion is full of dogma. The fact that Islam contains an attempt to immunize itself against reform serves to make it more dogmatic, as reformists can be shown, in black and white, to not be observing the religion as it was intended.

Dogma creates incredibly extreme behaviour. Once people believe they hold an absolute truth, almost anything becomes justifiable. It isn't limited to religion, as evidenced by the 20th century's forays into communism, but it is clearly present in religion, and particularly in Islam.

Comparing Canadian Muslims with Saudi Muslims is a false comparison, as I expect everyone can see. There really is a difference between living in a country as an extreme minority, versus living in a country as a member of the extreme majority. Nevermind living in a theocracy based on the religion. It's a completely different environment, and if people didn't behave differently, they wouldn't be tolerated very long.

My point is that, yes, it's a tough situation, but maybe screaming at someone while pointing a gun at them is not the way to diffuse it.

Reality is not black and white. It's complicated.

Maybe if they'd gotten out of the car and said "what seems to be the problem here?" the whole thing might have gone down differently. Instead they went in gung ho and 20 seconds later, the guy is dead.

But you're right, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. Will be interesting to see what the inquest says.

The link selected was for its clarity of description, not for its modus operandi, but, if you like, here's additional support for the non-dichotomous (not "black and white") assertion I've made (despite your suggestions to the contrary).

Simply put, suicidality is a side-effect of anti-depressants due, in part, to the increased energy or motivation that could arise as a result of the commencement of a round of SSRIs. Someone suffering from a severe depressive episode may, within a few weeks of commencing an SSRI, avail themselves to the means for suicide (in the absence of therapeutic interventions) which, in the weeks previous, might have seemed too difficult or like too much work to pull off.

As a psychologist and clinician myself, I am trained to work closely with individuals struggling with depressive episodes with an eye on this very issue. Sadly, for whatever reason, Robin's therapist(s) were unable to intervene as quickly as was necessary, speculating as I have, that a recent round with anti-depressants was at play.

Shame your "evidence" comes from a website that is a front for a law firm to sue pharmaceutical companies.

The reality is that the link between antidepressants and suicide is complex and not fully understood yet. For a start, antidepressants (by their very nature) are prescribed to people who have an increased risk, thus skewing the results. While there may be a link, there's also a serious issue of people who go off their meds having an increased risk.

So it's certainly not as black and white as you paint it.

Very little in science is black and white. Big upvote for NDT's follow up though. Here is an extremely thorough rundown of many of the issues at hand written by an unbiased reporter: http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/

In article #2 he writes about FDA safety testing of GMO's, which, while "voluntary" are always performed. According to an FDA policy analyst he interviews, "(I) frankly cannot really envision any circumstances under which anybody placing a ‘bioengineered’ food on the market would have the temerity NOT to consult with (the FDA).”

In the next article, he writes about the perception that GMO's are the product of for-profit corporations and meets with plant scientists at UC Davis; a nonprofit, publicly funded university.

If you don't have time to read the entire series, then at the very least read his final article. His conclusions are well-tempered and thoughful.

Yeah, I wasted my time. At least you researched it on Google (the documentary obviously not). But you didnt read it.
If you really mean what you say, after a little bit of research, completely ignoring what I said, just locking your jaw on direct consequences and still saying they are completely against GMO, then so be it.
But you know, your kind is addressed in that documentary and by that 14 year old too. AKA black and white thinkers - who are most of the time simple lobbyists. And why you think I or her are completely against GMO is beyond me either. I am against idiots like you who think this is a straight forward topic and just proudly call others out on their alleged hypocrisy, while you dont even understand the points they make, since they fall out of your black and white thinking.
Right now you appear as someone who says that there is no sugar in this candy, while its packaging, its taste and even its producer makes it clear that there is sugar in it.
Yeah well... whatever you say, Mr. "scientist"...

It doesn't have to be cut and dry, black and white.

The argument has largely been morphed by the pro-gun advocates that "Gun control won't stop gun violence".

The flat truth of it is that gun control helps curb gun-related violence. It's not about eliminating it. It's about making reasonable efforts that yield measurable results. The counterargument should NOT be that it's not enough, that's just silly... and downright insulting to the victims.

Oh... so everything is black and white then?

Nice. Great point. You win the internet. Bravo.

Please explain why what I said is wrong so I may better myself. I'm not being sarcastic.

For anyone that hasn't followed what this is about...

For the problems itemized in this video.
Loss of :
- power brake assist
- airbags
- power steering.

This affair was actually about 1 specific issue :
The detent in the key socket rotator was not as strong as it should have been.

What that specifically meant was that :
IF you had a large heavy keychain on your key, and you jerked it, or knocked it such that it swings hard, the keychain could pull on the key hard enough to turn the key to the OFF position.

So when the car would turn off, you'd lose the power brakes, power steering, and airbags would be inactive.

Under "normal" circumstances, this wasn't a problem.
But for the folks with a christmas tree hanging off of their key, it was a chance to turn off their car while driving.

(side note : Crying about the power steering and power brakes really misses the big issue : The steering lock can kick in while moving... which apparently no one gave enough of a crap about to think for the 2 seconds it takes to notice that elephant in the room)



In this case, the contention over whether or not the core problem with the key socket was negligence boils down to semantics.

Car companies buy their parts from sub contractors.
They spec out the parts, and sub contractors manufacture the parts 'to spec'.

The spec isn't a 'hard' requirement.
If you say "5 Newtons of force", that doesn't mean that 4.999999999999123 Newtons is unacceptable.

Actually, it's standard for ~all parts to not be exactly the spec. They just have to be 'close enough to work right'.

And for that matter, many of the numbers in various specs are 'off the cuff' values that are 'generally known to work fine'. Getting hung up on a specific number isn't salient - what matters is 'does it work right?'.

So the question becomes, what is "good enough to work right?".
In practice, that ends up being a judgment call. Often made by engineers that try out the parts.


Here's where congress and GM differed.

Congress said : The ignition socket wasn't 100% exactly what GM had in the spec that they sent to the subcontractors, so it was wrong from day 1, and they knew it wasn't 100% the spec since pre-production. Hence, GM was negligent.

GM said : Of course it wasn't 100% exactly the spec. That was to be expected. At the time, we had no indication that the actual provided part was so far out of spec that it would not work right.


My personal take :
If this was something as simple as 'actual malfunctions/breakages of parts', then it would be black and white.
But in these cases, nothing was actually broken or malfunctioning.
So you had to rely on statistics and analysis to identify the issue.
Statistics require data, data requires evidence, evidence requires time to collect.
Seeing as how the vast majority of cars had no problem, this isn't the kind of thing that just leaps out at you.

Since any given car, when made in massive quantities, will have all kinds of multiple complaints about multiple systems, you can't just go back and point at incident(s) X and Y and say that it was the smoking gun - because if it was, then you'd have a pile of smoking guns for every other part out there.
Every instance of every part has a small chance of going bad, and with enough cars, you'll have a lot of 'item A went bad' reports to sift through.
You can't jump to the conclusion after the first couple reports that the part is improper, and it's unrealistic to expect anyone to immediately make that conclusion.
In order to make an informed determination, you simply need a pattern to emerge.

(I listened to the CSPAN coverage of the hearings while driving.)

-scheherazade

I didnt read you crap properly, since you made it obvious in the first few words that you dont want to understand and do not realize that you are actually talking about yourself. Calling me a republican is another proof of you not being able to think outside of your black and white and biased prison.

Anyway, have you guys heard about the "Climate McCarthyism" lately?
Its obvious you havent (or chose to ignore it, as so many things that dont fit in your disgusting agenda), because it proves many of my points and is a disgusting proof that what you claim is not science anymore. And it has been going on for years. Many scientists have reported about such behavior, Svensmark collapsed on stage and other unbelievable things.
I have lost almost all my respect in scientists over the last few years because of this, and they were my heroes before. I remember how shocked I was when I first heard about it and didnt want to believe it. We live in 2014 and nothing has changed for thousands of years. Corruption is still the main driving factor. Objectivity? lol...


Congratulations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcAy4sOcS5M
I despise people like you. You have no idea how much.

So the Wizard of Oz black and white tornado thing is true?

That's odd. I thought a conversation through comments where my position was explained clearly, then yours was WAS a discussion....what do you call it?
I'm still waiting for that one example where the 'joke' is at no one and nothing's expense.
Explain why an object can't be the object of ridicule...or a fictional character.
You didn't read...I wrote it's at the expense of the stick, being compared to a turd, AND the reader/listener, who can't tell the difference.
What's black and white and eats like a horse IS a riddle, just a bad one. Explain how it's not if you don't think it is. If you didn't understand my explanation, that's not the same as me not offering one. Read again please.
Because you are complicit in fooling yourself does not make you less the fool. I say you ARE laughing at your own expense, at your foolishness for being misled (so easily, even intentionally by yourself).
Magic isn't shadenfreude, but laughing at the bad magician is. Clowning is ALL about shadenfreude.
Wow, you are bending over backwards there...you ARE certainly laughing at the expense of the clown...because he wants it that way. It's still laughing at his looking the fool. Because he accepts the expense (of being foolish) doesn't mean it does not exist. You're arguing ridiculous semantics and missing the point.
I have still not seen anything that doesn't meet my definition, things that make you laugh are at something's expense (even if that thing accepts the expense freely). You may not see it, but I think that's because you won't analyze it beyond the surface.
I did say essentially that, read again please.... I said "As I see it, all humor is schadenfreude (enjoyment taken from the misfortune of someone (or something) else. )" Your lack of empathy for other's points of view does not make it less so to me, and you have yet to convince me otherwise. I even gave a popular reference for that way of thinking, 'stranger in a strange land'.
When I first read the stick 'joke', I laughed at MYSELF for being duped...same with ET...I laughed at the mathematician poking himself in the asshole (in my mind) and myself for the thought. In the final analysis, the joke was on ME for most of those 'jokes'...and I'm fine with that, not offended, that was not what I said. I said the joke is at "x's" expense, sometimes that "X" is the listener. EDIT: sometimes the expense is infinitesimal and barely or not noticed.
Wow, you really don't understand humor? It was a joke, at your and my expense, about your statement "I'm so confused by your request for proof that i feel like someone's asked me "Air? What air? There's no air, i can't see any!"" That would make sense if the asker was under water, no? It was meant to show why someone might say that, and how the misunderstanding could be on either side of the 'joke'. Too 'deep'?
EDIT: And why you gotta talk crap about my face?!? I can't help how I look!
(have you somehow convinced yourself that your comments weren't snide?)

No problem. I've got a few jokes for you straight off the bat - what's brown and sticky? A stick. What's ET short for? He's only got little legs. Did you hear the one about the constipated mathematician? He worked it out with a pencil. Doctor doctor, i feel like a pair of curtains. Pull yourself together! What's black and white and eats like a horse? A zebra. What's black and white, black and white, black and white? A penguin rolling down a hill.

Hell, Tim Vine does hundreds of one liners in half an hour and the majority of them are not at anyone's expense.

I think you've confused what you find funny with the term "humour" as it were. You may only find shadenfreude funny, and so you think all humour is shadenfreude, but it is patently obvious that things can be humourous without being at someone's expense and i find it almost petulant to be asked to prove it when it is so obvious. You almost certainly know loads of jokes like that. How does Bob Marley like his donuts? Wi' jam-in. I stood there, wondering why the frisbee was getting bigger and bigger..... and then it hit me. What did the fish say when he swam into the wall? Dam.

From what i remember of Lenny Henry's standup (like him or not) in the old days, he didn't often tell a joke at someone's expense. Tommy Cooper used to make people laugh by doing bad magic tricks. Les Dawson used to make people laugh by playing the piano badly as only a good pianist can. Terry Pratchett makes me laugh by conjuring up funny situations in a fictional world. I laughed at the Big Lebowski when he shaded the pad of paper to see what secret notes Jackie Treehorn was making and it turned out to be a doodle of a man holding his own cock. What do you call a fish with no eyes? A fsh. I bought some new viagra eye drops, cos they make me look hard. What do you call a man with a shovel on his head? Doug.

I could go on and on and on, but i don't get paid for this and i have other stuff to do, but i hope i've opened your eyes to whole new realms of comedy where people don't get hit in the face with stuff. Where are the Andes? At the end of your wristies. Why didn't the skeleton go to the party? He had no body to go with.

I'm so confused by your request for proof that i feel like someone's asked me "Air? What air? There's no air, i can't see any!"

I'm utterly dreading to read your reply if it says anything along the lines of "That ET joke is offensive to short people! That skeleton joke is offensive to people with eating disorders! The penguin joke is offensive to the penguin you pushed down the hill!" Please don't embarrass us both by doing that, we both know those jokes aren't offensive. (Or very funny, to be honest.)

Do you honestly have no clue as to what you do ?

The only thing I personaly respect about what you do with the ban thing is that you adhere the Terms of service ( which everyone reads of course right ??? ).

The rest of the time you deny possible gems in the rough without any warning.

I mean I do not want to be so in your face, but to see you write that made me mad. You have denied so many possible peole here without any incling of the genuine purpose of the site, you just outright ban people and we are not stupid, it is so you can garner some form of level up, you got called on a lot of things in the past in that regard. SERIOUSLY ? ? you ask her why she explained that ??

TELL YOU WHAT , I honestly told people exactly what she did in a pm, while you asked your silly little funnel of a question. What makes people pissed is that you give no quarter, you give no choice ( to most - obviously some are blatent www. whores ) but you have a black and white for the most part.

So do not be impressed or decompressed when someone actually explains something to someone, I have been doing it for years on the opposite behalf of you. Lately I just got tired of it for the past year and couldn't give a shit.

But I am in a talking mood, I love ya enough to write this because it astounded me as to your obliviousness to actually giving someone a chance, not just this video in general, this video was the scratch test and the lattice grew.


WHEWWWWW free therapy !