Yeah, i dont trust a single fuck with a badge or a gun or both and a uniform. That wasnt always so. At one time i was a pretty lame introverted nerd with the world as my oyster. Listening to Rage Against the Machine made me concerned, because it was too extreme. And then the iron fist of law enforcement thought theyd fuck with me and make me suffer for what was not my burden. And then it just gets worse and worse, a downward spiral of constant legal battles, jail time, mental illness, etc. etc. etc. Its all the same to me, govt, law enforcement, human resource representatives, executives, redcoats. Oppression creates terrorism. Always.

During the Philippine-American war, the events which lead up to our own soldiers commiting acts of genocide started with our disregard of the indigenous people, oppression, and penchant for disrespecting local men and harassing their women; as well, our ignorant and well documented philosophies of Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism. The family of the abused rise up and attack their oppressors. Terrorism will always be so as long as the mighty refuse to respect all ways of life and seek instead to instill their systems of government and create puppet governments whoch fail, destablizing entire regions.

Because now the game is bigger. You dont simply destablize a region: when you oppress people, you destabilize an entire zeitgeist, affecting far more people than ever before. People in America rise up to join forces that provide promises of liberty that America no longer offers. Even if those terror groups themselves lie, the broken people see it as a hope. The oppressed will crawl out of the woodwork and kill. There is no precise pattern when frank castles of the world do their deeds. Its just like the 4000 deaths per year from semitrucks, the trucking industry says 70% (debatable, likely a lower number) of accidents are caused by noncommercial vehicles. Impatient people weaving in and out of traffic and cutting off truck drivers oppresses them and sometimes even they to rise up and do terror.

So simple answer: Love, peace, and good will are what the government should promote. Of course, that would simply open them to being taken advantage of... so, we are fucked, always and forever. But maybe even if we cant promote true peace, perhaps we can at least avoid creating the terrorists we fear.

"Doing these things as a prelude to proselytizing means they aren't altruistic..."

Altruism isn't the right word. When people help others to their hurt, that is called agape love, a word the Christian community has owned for 2000 years. You're right of course, that more than a few churches out there are always trying to figure out how to get more members, more money etc. But that isn't all the churches, or even nearly so. For instance the churches in this community dont care who goes where; they all work together and no one is taking the credit for it. This is just one counter example to the broad brush strokes you're painting here.

I think you need a little more nuance here too, newtboy; for instance, would you say it is wrong for atheists to do good deeds in the name of atheism? Or, for the red cross to air commercials showing their accomplishments so they could raise more money to expand their mission in the world?

"And yet, here you are calling attention to yourself (and them), so you proved your statement wrong by stating it publicly. Oops! ;-)"

I didn't mention what I do newtboy, but I have no problem calling attention to the righteous who glorify God through their lives.

"Churches are for profit institutions.."

The church according to the bible is a non-profit organization. Whether churches in America reflect that or not is another question entirely. I know for my church, and almost any other church, you can request to see how the church spends its money year by year. None of the churches I have dealings with are making "profits"

"Once again I would ask, why do you question your god's clear wish that I (and others) not believe in him..."

Jesus Christ died for our sins, yours and mine. God already demonstrated His love for us while we were sinners, now the only question is, will you reciprocate? The insanity of the question posed to Stephan Fry, ie what would you say to God, is exposed by the answer "How dare you!" by Stephan. It seems that people believe God is a man who needs to explain Himself, who has something to hide. Yet, Stephan and every other human being have a lot to hide; the brutal and ugly truth of how we have all lived our lives here.

It's easy for a man to say to people who know nothing about him that he will shake his fist at God when they meet. Yet, what will he do when all of his lawless deeds are exposed and the secrets he has kept from everyone are brought to light? All the fight will go out of him immediately, this I guarantee you. Yet, this in itself is still ridiculous, considering that even merely being in Gods presence is enough to make the most hardened sinner fall to his knees and weep uncontrollably. But people won't be weeping because God loves them on that day, they will be weeping and gnashing their teeth after being confronted by the fact that they have missed the boat for eternity.

"Shirley.."

My name isn't Sherlock..

"Doing 100 good deeds and one incredibly evil deed makes one evil. No church in history has ever reached that level of goodness. Churches are evil. I hope that clears things up."

I'm glad you understand what I have been trying to explain to the sift for years; a relative goodness is no goodness at all. If you set fire to someones home, and then built 27 orphanages, would people call you good? Why is it then that people think that all of our good deeds should cause God to forgive us for a single sin? This is the reason Jesus died for us, because we can't earn Gods forgiveness and our good deeds can't erase our bad ones. Could you ever go to court and say "your honor, although I commited this crime I have done over 1000 hours of community service in my lifetime, so please dismiss the case; will that ever happen? That wouldn't be justice, and if God threw out our case without true justice, He wouldn't be a just judge.

What would I say about churches who have done evil? These are institutions; the true church is the body of Christ, of which every born again believer is a member of. That is what is happening in my community, is that no one cares about the institution of the church; they are just being the church. The reward is simply this, to serve God honorably by living a sacrificial life predicated on sacrificial love.

region blocked /shakes fist
Attenborough too

*dead again... sort of... (damn you private mode *shakes tiny fist*)

I think they should give it the ability to charge its skin with 100000volts as soon as it detects imminent abuse, like when it sees a child's fist or foot accelerating directly towards it. You stupid kids are going to create Skynet, and it's going to be pissed!

Would you like to have a 2% chance of being mugged at knife-point/punched or a 1.5% chance of mugged at gunpoint? I'll go with the knife/fist as i'm in pretty good shape to run away. Thank god we have a chance of surviving our violent crimes.

A very carefully cherry-picked statistic from the journalistic equivalent of the u-bend in your toilet, the Daily Fail. If you're going to post something to support your argument, don't go for the right wing gutter press - go for something more neutral that use facts over hysteria, such as a statistics office or charity group.

*fist bump*
Beedledeedledeedledeedeep

I love being brought together. I feel so warm and tingly. Like when a Drumpf supporter gently wipes away a Bernie supporters tear, with a fist.

@ChaosEngine She raises her fist? Take a step back.

Put up your hand in a "stop" motion and say loudly and firmly "NO."

It's that simple. That difficult.

I don't expect perfection from humans in the moment. We have have limitations. But the commentary afterwards?

It. Is. Not. Okay. To. Hit.

He had options. He didn't take them.

Leaving aside the reasons for the conflict in the first place (difficult to comment since we really don't have any information about what happened), isn't that what he did?

She became agitated to the point where she assaulted him. It might not have been a serious assault, but it was assault nonetheless.

We don't know what her intention was, but it looked like she intended to commit more violence (her fist was raised).

You could argue that he stopped that from happening.

Personally, I would have walked away at that point, but every situation is different, and we don't know what lead either of them to this point.

The guy could a complete sleazebag. Or he could be a past victim of assault who decided "never again". We just don't know.

I 100% agree with you that the best fight is the one you don't have to have. De-escalation is always preferable, but it's not always possible.

If you do get into a physical confrontation, then your goal should be to end it as quickly as possible.

Well then yes, we respectfully disagree.
As I saw it, she had already aggressively touched him with his back turned, and then raised her fists as if to hit him again, so he could easily think he had to strike to keep from being hit again.
I wouldn't say it's the 'right' thing to do, I would say it's an acceptable thing, but I certainly agree it's on the 'wrong' end of that spectrum of acceptability.
Mr Miaggi was right, the best way to win a fight is to not be in one....but that's not within everyone's capability. No training coupled with lack of self control makes that impossible for some. They are not bad people because they lack those skills, IMO, and they have a right to their imperfect reactions up to a clearly legally defined point without being told that, because they didn't do the best thing, they did the wrong thing.
You are free to think differently, I don't need to agree with you 100% to like you.

@newtboy. Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

I disagree with you 100%. It is not okay to hit.

That guy had a lot of options and he didn't take any of them. I agree with you that not everyone has the skills to hold it together in situations like this.

Just because people fail at taking other options doesn't make hitting back the right thing to do.

It. Is. Not. Okay. To. Hit.

Of course if someone is coming at you, you might have to strike to KEEP THEM FROM HITTING YOU. Retaliation, though, is not a "moral" response. It is a failure of maturity and coping skills. It is the failure to take a step back to protect yourself.

Stand your ground sucks with guns or fists.

I took a self defense class years ago. I was taught skills that are potentially damaging. I was also taught to use my words to de-escalate.

I do not think it is good to say it is okay to hit and say it is "morally" okay.

We want to be the change, right? So say no hitting, mean it, and have understanding when someone hits anyway. It isn't about perfection. It is about a goal.

Well. We have traded our points of view a couple of times now. I'm certainly not going to change my mind. Would you like the last word?

Then you do mostly agree with me, because I did say the best way to deal with this kind of situation is just walk away.
....BUT...
not everyone has the ability to see the best course of action, especially when they're being screamed at and poked, and there's no legal or moral REQUIREMENT to walk away. (in this case it seemed he was looking for something he lost, in which case 'walking away' would be abandoning his property)
The pop wasn't the best response...but it was not out of line as I see it. When someone touches you in anger, you have every right to pop them in the mouth, especially if they have their fists raised against you. It's usually not the best idea, but it is a legal, and moral right.
It's best to argue with your mind/words, not your fists, and when possible use your mind against their fists, but when that's not possible for whatever reason, and when they used their fists first, there's no problem with using your fists in defense. No hitting FIRST....hitting back is just fine though. It's not the best reaction by far, but is an acceptable one.

I agree with almost everything you said except it being out of line to hit her. She touched/punched/scratched his neck/ear/head in an aggressive manner, then raised her fist at him. Once you touch the other person aggressively, they have a right to any defense they think is necessary so long as it's within reason. One 'don't touch me' pop in the mouth is within reason in my mind. That assumes he didn't touch her first...we don't know.

I listened closer, and I'm thinking maybe it's his laptop that's missing, and probably why he 'touched her shit' ...looking for it, and why he's looking under the seats up and down the train. At 2:10 it sounds like she says "thank you, thank you, I just won a fucking laptop, thank you thank you" and has what looks like one in her hand...but if that's the case, he gave up easy, so I'm not at all sure what's the deal here.