Actually, most satanists believe in veneration of the self over others. "Do whatever thou wilt" as it were.

Pretty much like any other religion, it's a mystical justification for behaving in the manner they want to (much like christianity is a justification for being judgmental and annoying ; ).

I understand the "justification", though I don't agree with it, I would have done even worse if I were there.

My reaction is more critical of the tone of the media than the subjects in the footage. Newscasters who will warn sensitive viewers when they might show raw meat or a dead bird onscreen, but almost applaud the violence as it's happening here. It sends a terrible and wrong message that brutality is okay if you're "the good guy".

If you did high school bio, think about what you covered that has any sort of influence on medicine... =)

Frog or rat dissection? Covered that in Bio 101 in the first year of my Applied Chemistry degree (and yes, you can give a rat a Columbian necktie... . Photosynthesis? Mating?

Yeah, Bio was pretty much introducing you to broad concepts and it's nothing that doesn't get rehashed in the first 6 months of Uni via intro subjects. I think of it more as a way to dip the toe in the pool and see if the subject matter excites you enough to try and turn it in to a career.

eg. At 40 now (and having forgotten my chem degree and gone in to IT as a sys admin after working as a chef, bouncer etc), I could go back to uni barely remembering anything about chemistry and start from scratch and be none the worse for it. The keystones you talk about are literacy and numeracy, that's about it. And they are learned in primary school.

Oh sure, it helps if you can do some higher math, but English lit? Physics? Drama? Almost nothing you do at high school has any real defining affect on most of what you do as an adult. It's more like a sampler platter, and of course a way of grading students (on a curve of course, we can't have people's scores based on their own merit) to distinguish what tertiary studies they should be eligible for.

School should be about igniting curiousity as much as practical skills for life. I did "Home Economics" (ie. cooking/sewing/budgets etc) and typing (on real mechanical typewriters no less) as opposed to wood/metal shop ( I was awful at shop). My home ec teacher was always interested in making different food, so we tried some pretty out there things in grade 8 (~13 years old), and I've always been interested in cooking since. Similarly, learning to touch type has made my life radically simpler, particularly in IT (try writing a 40 page instruction manual hunting and pecking).

Most of the high school grads we see as cadets or trainees are essentially useless and have to be taught from scratch anyway. Most of the codified BS we have these days doesn't prepare kids for life, doesn't encourage critical thinking or creativity, it a self justification to keep schools open.

Cop apologist. As if being stupid is some justification for being beaten down like this. People are considered stupid for a reason. Doesn't mean they deserve this abhorrent type treatment from those who are suppose to serve and protect and be better then that. Shes an idiot and he deserves the most extreme vigilante justice for being a cunt of the worst kind. *angry*

We get all, you should have known better(sanctimonious) when its someone you don't know but if this was your child, there is no way you would be telling your kid, your disfigured crushed face is justice for your immature behavior.

-edit-
At what age is it appropriate to hit your/a child for disobeying or rebelling in some way against you as an elder, adult or parent.

..what the actual fuck.. @_@..

Your justification to defense of heinous behavior is..
"but at least he was funny or 'naturally' talented"?!

That is batshit crazy logic. (and waaay creepier considering your username and avatar)

Firstly:
You could literally make this argument about every awful person/thing on the planet.

"ISIS? They're not ALL bad. They support the local economy"

"Jim Jones of Jonestown Massacre? He helped a lot of people find happiness and acceptance. "

"Sure the Atlantic Slave Trade was bad. But think of all the great civil rights leaders that.. um.. we wouldn't have had.. to have had.. otherwise.."


Secondly:
Awful shit is just awful!
And should ALWAYS overshadow any "good" accomplishments a person does.

Disgrace, dishonor, shame, scorn, condemnation, disdain are all words that represent an idea for a reason.

If society doesn't distinguish and stigmatize shitty people & their supporters.. it validates and normalizes their actions & behavior.

You're effectively arguing that as long as someone does at least ONE noteworthy or impressive accomplishment..

Society should still admire them to a degree.. or at least not solely define them by.. their overwhelmingly disgusting, fundamentally wrong behavior.



Again.. @_@ wtaf??!?

Thanks for posting this, Bob.
I was gonna post the other related video from Prager "University".

This video is a perfect example of the racism that Neo-Cons try to deny, while actively demonstrating their racism.

It's called Tokenism. Look that shit up.

Tokenism is when you find a minority that agrees with you, in order to justification your inaccurate or hateful beliefs.

"See, I can't be racist. A black guy agrees with me!"

That's patronizing as fuck, Bob.
You know that, right?

"Okay silly black man. Maybe if this other black person says it.. THEN you'll finally get it."


You and @lantern53 are racist.

But you're both too Politically-correct - read: cowardly - to openly admit that you judge black.

Your comments are evidence of this.

Posting videos that patronize black people -

like they don't know which group of people is being the most racist towards them

- is simply more evidence of that.

I waited tables while in college. At least half the servers were racist against black people and any other racial group that stereotypically tipped poorly, including black servers.

And I absolutely never avoided a table or gave someone poorer service because of their race, and I never had "racist banter" with people as a means to complain about them. If I ever did make any racist joke about that, it was in mocking fashion against anyone who actually acted in a racist manner.

There's no justification for racism, period. And yet, you just tried to make one.

I listened a few times, but all I could understand was "I'm have a right to be here" and "you need to stay away from ...." and "I have a right to film". I also caught the other officers cheering "yay!" when he smashed her phone. There was a lot I just can't pick out over the other noise though, she was 'pushing buttons' it seemed, but that's no where near justification for the criminal reaction.

If it were left to the moderates - and you are not one, you are the other extreme - then change would never happen, because no one would be angry enough. How far would the abuse have to go, how rife would it have to be, before you got angry enough to try and change it? During the height of racism in america, you would have wondered why the million man march was necessary given that you never had any problems on your traffic stops.

I have read comments from newt praising the actions of the police when they act in ways which deserve praise.

Yet you - you never seem to rule out that a beating is unacceptable. You always add the caveat "maybe he wasn't putting his hands behind his back," (or similar) but in the same breath claim that you've never been in that situation. Perhaps if you had, you would understand that the human survival instinct is not something that can be turned off when you are being attacked.

Do you honestly, even in your closeted, warped and twisted mind, think that you can kick and punch someone in the face UNTIL they put their hands behind their back? You are excusing them on the basis that they make an impossible demand and the demand is not met.

Your guarantee is worthless, on what authority do you make it!? You have a pathetically ignorant world view in which if it works for you, it works for everyone - damn the evidence, and damn those who it doesn't work for. If your traffic stops went without a hitch, then all these videos of psychopaths in uniform are outliers and don't need to be dealt with. You're an excuse maker and an apologist for violent, dangerous individuals who are given exceptional power which they abuse.

Unless some people get angry about it, nothing will change, because people like you will always find a justification for them, and that's more reason to get angry.

i think some here are missing the point of this short video.
while we can all argue the particulars of religion,it's failings and its successes,the fundamental reasons for its existence remains.

the militant atheist will argue holy text with the very same literalism that a fundamentalist exhibits,all the while ignoring the massive contributions to humanity in the realms of:art,philosophy,politics and even science.

while this dynamic of the argument is not necessarily wrong,it is,however,inaccurate.one cannot ignore,nor dismiss the positive contributions of religions,which have been legion.this does not mean that religion is above reproach nor criticism,just that a militants argument is incomplete without acknowledging this vital facet of human history.

the problem gentlemen,is fundamentalism,of ANY flavor.
religion is not going anywhere,much to the chagrin of atheists,but the reasons why humanity gravitates towards religion,or a search for the divine and sacred,remain a very powerful influence.

religion must,and has over the centuries,evolve to incorporate the paradigms that are added daily.the religion that is rigid in its interpretations and implaccable in its philosophy...dies.human history is littered with the remains of lost religions that refused to evolve with humanity.

a good example is the dark ages.which was partially perpetrated by a rigid understanding of christian theology (and an abuse of power and authority)affecting millions.it halted human progress and imposed a suffering and misery that is still remembered to this day.then the church experienced a philisophical shift and the reformation was exacted,ending the dark ages and introducing the 'age of enlightenment"...and human progress was allowed to proceed.

interestingly enough,while this was all happening in europe and human misery was a direct result of religious rigidity,the muslims were carrying the torch for human progress.making such additions as algebra and other huge strides in the sciences.

how is that for irony?

fundamentalism,in any form,must be fought at every level.so on that note i tend to side with atheists who are on a constant vigil in revealing the utter hypocrisy of a fundamentalist theosophy,but i will not ignore the wonderful and fantastic contributions that religion has added to human history.

because the fundamental reason why humanity gravitates toward religion is still there and it is not going anywhere.so religion,like man,must evolve to encompass the new paradigm in order to express our humanity,inspiration and awe in the face of the divine.

i am not an overly religious man.
that form of theosophy is not my path,but i recognize the importance of religion and its positive contributions.the challenge is to allow the more archaic and atrophied theosophy to fall away and dissolve like a vestigal limb.keep the parts that inspire and exalt humanity and allow the unnecessary and irrelevant to die with dignity,to become a footnote in our history.

which is what i gathered this video was attempting to convey and why i found it interesting.

@shinyblurry
thanks for the link buddy,now i am depressed.

@bobknight33
please do not take offense when i say:your last comment is so riddled with contradictions,fallacies and outright ignorance in the understandings of -religious history,politics and philosophy that i cannot even begin to address a singular point.that comment is just one big mess.

i will say this in regards to your comment.
to assert that atheists have no moral compass due to their lack of faith and/or religion is just patently bullshit.unless of course,you secretly wish to murder,steal and bang your neighbors wife and the ONLY thing keeping you from acting out is your fear of god.
or hell..whatever..judgement.

do you see what a facile and inept argument that is? morality is inherent to each individual.we all develop our own moral code.now religion can help clarify that moral code,but if you take religion away? we still will all have a moral code we live by.

we also rationalize.
ah..now there is something we humans excel at..rationalizing.or better put:lying to ourselves in order to justify poor behavior.here is where the atheist and the religious diverge.because the atheist has no holy text to twist and manipulate in order to justify that poor behavior,they have to own it and take responsibility.the religious person,however,can abdicate responsibility onto an ancient text based solely on their own interpretation (or some authority they have given power).human history is burdened with the mass graves of such justifications.

ok..i am rambling.
i love this subject and rarely get to engage in discussions such as this.if you have made it this far..i thank you for your kind patience with my own proclivities towards verbosity.

Isildur wears it while escaping his ambush by orcs, and does indeed turn invisible before it slips off his finger. Unfortunately the argument is available that he, like the hobbits, has every reason to value stealth in that moment. It's notable that both he and Frodo are made aware (in Frodo's case by Galadriel) that the ring's real strength is beyond them.

Bombadil wears it briefly as well, of course, and doesn't vanish. But he's a pain in the ass. Others might say it's because he's an ainu, duh. Or shut up, he's a deliberate anomaly. I'd claim, not with a tremendous amount of canonical justification it has to be said, that it's because he's all physical; a personification of middle-earth and even the ring can't shove him into the shadow world.

I like how she says "science wasn't even as certain as it is today. It is very certain today" and ignores the fact that science is very certain also of all the things they refused to accept like evolution, big bang, climate change...

Meanwhile yes, get vaccinated. Even if the studies against it were true, it in the end would mean less overall complications and deaths by more and more people not being vaccinated because religious nut jobs say not to and spread false information. Even at Copland's mega church, one of the biggest anti-vax churches in the country is now encouraging vaccination after an outbreak there, though they blame it on somebody visiting the church who had it... which is of course the f'n point, to be immune when, if somebody who has it, comes by.

Even nearly 11 years ago when my eldest son was born, we had a moment of skepticism over it, but in the end decided to risk it. He did end up with Aspergers, but we don't blame the vaccinations. And his own personal hard work (and those around him), he no longer needs an IEP or regular counseling. Even if it was remotely possible that the Aspergers came from it, still better the risk of that than the risk of what would happen if nobody was vaccinated and he got measles. The right loves showing pictures of the twin towers as justification for torture, how about seeing pictures of children with measles before the vaccine came out?

Hockey is a violent sport. A lot of hockey people think that allowing fights, which in the NHL usually happen between each team's designated "goons", prevents or lessens other dirty/dangerous play that would build up with unchecked aggression that is a pretty natural part of the sport. That's an oversimplification, but one of the major justifications.

I love watching hockey. I think it is a great sport that allows for many different paths to victory -- you can have a winning team made up of fast, graceful, highly skilled players, OR cerebral, teamwork based players, OR intimidating, brute force goons. Or a mix of any/all of those.

I'm not an expert, but I'm a fan. I didn't grow up with hockey in my blood (not from Canada), but became a fan in my teens. But, I do actually see a certain amount of logic in the hockey pundits argument that fighting cuts down on other dirty play. I think that if anyone watches enough hockey, they see evidence that it is true. Maybe not quite as true as the pro-fight pundits suggest, but it is there.

Better officiating, penalties, and suspensions for the kinds of dangerous / dirty play that fighting is supposed to cut down on would help. Even though I think fighting has a place in the game, the NHL does need to evolve some more consistency in those areas.

I'm a Colorado Avalanche fan. The Avs main rival for a long time was the Detroit Red Wings, and then a former Wings player (Brendan Shanahan) became the head of player safety. His job was basically to review dirty plays or plays that resulted in an injury, and dole out warnings/suspensions/fines. He took a lot of flack for inconsistency; many people thought that in two similar incidents he might hand out a long suspension to one and a slap on the wrist to the other. But even though he was from my "rival team", I thought he did a pretty good job, and it represented a great step forward for the NHL. The thing that I thought he did really well was that for every incident he reviewed, there was always a video available on the internet showing what happened from multiple angles followed by his thoughts on it, what disciplinary action he was going to issue, and his justifications for it. Of course everyone isn't always going to agree about that kind of stuff, but he put it out in the open instead of behind closed doors.

To me, that was a big step forward for the NHL. If they continue on that path, I think it is reasonable to suggest that fighting will become less important/necessary/beneficial. But I think it will always be at least a small part of the game.

Not sure of the relevance of how long I've "believed" there is climate change happening? I'd argue as just another laymen nobody should be putting any stock in my opinion based on my credentials in any way. Compare what I say is in the actual IPCC reports, to what is actually and honestly in them for yourself instead. To the strict and bare question, I don't really know how long, more than a decade though to be sure.

Wealth redistribution is basically any form of taxation. Moving money from entity X to entity Y for justification Z.

Sounds pretty much like a justification for not looking at this crap objectively.
"...who has dedicated his life protecting others"
What would happen if he said no? What would happen if he said, what I do is wrong? What we do as a nation in other countries is wrong. What if the roles of me and my enemy were switched? Why do we meddle in their affairs and dont learn from history that has hundreds of times proven that something like that will only make things worse?
He would lose everything. His job, money, everything he ever thought he could do and probably also lose his family. He would be called a traitor, a pussy by his friends and society and whatnot.
Thats why its only about protecting oneself. Ignorance is the strongest weapon for people like him. Talk to people like him about politics. They dont understand whats going on, and they also dont want to understand, because who would want to be proven wrong with everything they did and believed in all of their life? Your whole life a lie? Your lifes works despicable and youre just a tool for corrupt politicians? They are conditioned, indoctrinated. Sad, but still dangerous as the last decades have shown so well. They are not at fault, they are the victims of politics. But they also support those politics because they dont understand whats really going on. A vicious circle.