It's up to all of us to carry on and resist. He taught, we learned. It's our time to teach, even if it's not easy.

Who can resist a bird that speaks fluent Probe Droid.

Yes, people should be able to have the same weapons their local police have. If a weapon is too powerful for the public to have, the cops don't need it either. If the shit gets too hot, call in the national guard. As far as spawnflagger saying active military or SWAT owning an AR15, why wouldn't they just train with it and keep it at their department? There's no need for them to own it themselves to be able to use it.

A big part of any overthrow of government is getting the police and military to defect or refuse to fire on the resistance. Peaceful revolutions work much better for this than armed ones, although it seemed to work in Ukraine.

“The most important thing that happens when a new iPhone comes out is not the release of the phone, but the disassembly of it.”

Demonstrably false. The market has proven that almost no one cares about this.

When the iPhone first came out, people derided it’s lack of removable battery. Good luck finding a high end smartphone with a removable battery these days. Then there was components soldered onto the board, then the removal of the headphone socket, all of which Samsung, etc have copied*.

Outside of a vocal minority, no one cares about phone repairability. If you do, congrats, you’re part of that minority, and that’s fine. Personally, I think it’s a reasonable thing, but clearly, most people prefer thinner, lighter, water resistant phones over fixable phones.

* note: yes, Apple have copied features of droid phones too. No, it’s not relevant to this discussion.

Vive la resistance.

Worth mentioning at the end that bacteria may become resistant to licin from a phage eventually, but as far as I'm aware bacteria cannot become resistant to phages themselves because the phage evolves alongside the bacteria.

He loves his wife. Sometimes they touch. on special occasions. Occasionally.

No but seriously the sexuality of either is irrelevant, surely? I'm not wild about people I don't know well touching me either... but come on Daryl. Were you worried that if you didn't put a firm stop to the arm touching it might slide all slippery like down to more.. ha... intimate...p.places....Dear Lord Jesus grant me the strength to resist...

Sorry. Really seriously now though, I don't think is fair to gay peeps to always assume the homophobe is trapped in the closet. It's probably not that fair to make fun of the closet dwelling homophobe either - somebody else taught them to hate themselves...and somebody else is an asshole. I hope you're not an asshole Daryl.

Actually, it doesn't burst so much as it ruptures in a small tear. Doctors state you can actually 'feel it go'. The tear doesn't dump all the food, it just releases bacteria into your system which kills you in a few hours if not treated.

The video is correct that it is almost impossible for this to happen in normal situations due to the brain inducing a gag reflex if you continue trying to eat. There are some situations which prevent people from following that reflex.

Bulimia can actually train the body to resist the gag reflex and the constant purging can help a full stomach to tear. Documented cases exist where bulimics have died due to stomach rupture.

People who have been starving for a long period of time can eat more than they can hold. Numerous cases of POW's during WWII, that were presented with large quantities of food after being starved for long periods of time, were indicative of stomach ruptures.

Fortunately if the rupture is caught in time, apparently with emergency surgery and treatment it is not likely to kill you.

Even if no one served the Lord, it doesn't change the fact that the Lord loves you and wants you to turn back to Him. You're speaking of others conviction; I am here doing the Lord's will and telling you that He is calling you; do you have any conviction about that? I pray that you do.

Jesus spoke about these times:

Matthew 24:10-12

And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold

Paul also spoke about these times:

2 Timothy 3

But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was

So what you're seeing and what you're angry about are the signs which confirm we are in the last days. Our reaction to that should be humility, not anger. These are the last days and the Lord is coming back to judge the Earth. The Lord will cleanse His church like He cleansed the temple; judgment begins at the house of the Lord. Our response to these things should be personal repentance and a determination to take on the responsibility of carrying the message of redemption to all people.

You must take your eyes off of men and put them back on the Lord, because that is the only place you will find clarity. God is calling you back to Himself.

I think it's an ugly necessity.

Equality isn't about treating everybody the same. I mean, I wish we could do that, but then I wish people wouldn't decide if they are going to hire somebody from their very first glance. But that's what we do. We do nothing and we simply allow our unconscious bias to rule our decision making which, in most cases, would be great for somebody like me.

I mean, I don't like it. I can understand entirely why people feel they have been cheated when somebody gets a job or promotion ahead of them just for the sake of ticking a diversity checkbox. Maybe you're right, maybe it is just adding energy to that pendulum, but then a pendulum without resistance swings forever. I hope conscious decisions to readdress imbalanced caused by unconscious bias works more as a dampening effect, as resistance.

Back to semantics. Like the woman in the video, I probably had quite a knee-jerk response to men's rights. Sometimes probably warranted, but then some feminists have some pretty dumb things to say as well. Anyway, the person that helped changed by mind about it was a woman and a feminist. Don't define a group by it's most extreme edges because I think it just leads you to make uncharitable judgements about people that identify as part of that group before you've even really listened to them.

lol "why certainly...I will assist you with assaulting this suspect who could very easily have something to stab me with should she resist".

Freedom of religion is independent of civilian armament.
History shows that religious persecution is normal for humanity, and in most cases it's perpetrated by the government. Sometimes to consolidate power (with government tie-ins to the main religion), and sometimes to pander to the grimace of a majority.

Ironically, in this country, freedom of religion only exists due to armed conflict, albeit merely as a side effect of independence from a religiously homogeneous ruling power.



It's true that Catalonians would likely have been shot at if they were armed.
However, likewise, the Spanish government will never grant the Catalans democracy so long as the Catalans are not armed - simply because it doesn't have to.
(*Barring self suicidal/sacrificial behavior on part of the Catalans that eventually [after much suffering] embarrasses the government into compliance - often under risk that 3rd parties will intervene if things continue)

When the government manufactures consent, it will be first in line to claim that people have democratic freedom. When the government fails to manufacture consent, it will crack down with force.

At the end of the day, in government, might makes right. Laws are only words on paper, the government's arms are what make the laws matter.

Likewise, democracy is no more than an idea. The people's force of arms (or threat thereof) is what assert's the people's dominance over the government.



You can say the police/military are stronger and it would never matter, however, the size of an [armed] population is orders of magnitude larger than the size of an army. Factor in the fact that the people need to cooperate with the government in order to support and supply the government's military. No government can withstand armed resistance of the population at large. This is one of the main lessons from The Prince.

Civilian armament is a bulwark against potentially colossal ills (albeit ills that come once every few generations).

Look at NK. The people get TV, radio, cell, from SK. They can look across the river and see massive cities on the Chinese side. They know they have to play along with the charade that their government demands. At the end of the day, without guns, things won't change.

Look at what happened during the Arab Spring. All these unarmed nations turned to external armed groups to fight for them to change their governments. All it accomplished was them becoming serfs to the invited 3rd parties. This is another lesson from The Prince : always take power by your own means, never rely on auxiliaries, because your auxiliaries will become your new rulers.






Below is general pontification. No longer a reply.
------------------------------------------------------------------



Civilian armament does come with periodic tragedies. Those tragedies suck. But they're also much less significant than the risks of disarmament.
(Eg. School shootings, 7-11 robberies, etc -versus- Tamils vs Sri Lankan government, Rohingya vs Burmese government. etc.)

Regarding rifles specifically (all varieties combined), there is no point in arguing magnitudes (Around 400 lives per year - albeit taken in newsworthy large chunks). 'Falling out of bed' kills more people, same is true for 'Slip and fall'. No one fears their bed or a wet floor.

Pistols could go away and not matter much.
They have minimal militia utility, and they represent almost the entirety of firearms used in violent crime. (Albeit used to take lives in a non newsworthy 1 at a time manner)

(In the U.S.) If tragedy was the only way to die (otherwise infinite lifespan), you would live on average 9000 years. Guns, car crashes, drownings, etc. ~All tragedies included. (http://service.prerender.io/http://polstats.com/?_escaped_fragment_=/life#!/life)






A computer learning example I was taught:

Boy walking with his mom&dad down a path.
Lion #1 jumps out, eats his dad.
(Data : Specifically lion #1 eats his father.)
The boy and mom keep walking
Lion #2 jumps out, eats his mother.
(Data : Specifically lion #2 eats his mother)
The boy keeps walking
He comes across Lion #3.

Question : Should he be worried?

If you are going to generalize [the first two] lions and people, then yes, he should be worried.

In reality, lions may be very unlikely to eat people (versus say, a gazelle). But if you generalized from the prior two events, you will think they are dangerous.

(The relevance to computer learning is that : Computers learn racism, too. If you include racial data along with other data in a learning algorithm, that algorithm can and will be able to make decisions based on race. Not because the software cares - but because it can analyze and correlate.)

(Note : This is also why arguing religion is likely futile. If a child is raised being told that everything is as it is because God did it, then that becomes their basis for reality. Telling them that their belief in god is wrong, is like telling the boy in the example that lions are statistically quite safe to people. It challenges what they've learned.)



I mentioned this example, because it illustrates learning and perception. And it segways into my following analogy.



Here's a weird analogy, but it goes like this :

(I'm sure SJW minded people will shit themselves over it, but whatever)

"Gun ownership in today's urban society" is like "Black people in 80's white bred society".

2/3 of the population today has no contact with firearms (mostly urban folk)
They only see them on movies used to shoot people, and on the news used to shoot people.
If you are part of that 2/3, you see guns as murder tools.
If you are part of the remaining 1/3, you see guns like shoes or telephones - absolutely mundane daily items that harm nobody.

In the 80's, if you were in a white bred community, your only understanding of black people would be from movies where they are gangsters and shoot people, and from the nightly news where you heard about some black person who shot people.
If you were part of an 80's white bred community, you saw black people as dangerous likely killers.
If you were part of an 80's black/mixed community, you saw black people as regular people living the same mundane lives as anyone else.

In either case, you can analytically know better. But your gut feelings come from your experience.



Basically, I know guns look bad to 2/3 of the population. That won't change. People's beliefs are what they are.
I also know that the likelihood of being in a shooting is essentially zero.
I also know that history repeats itself, and -just in case- I'd rather live in an armed society than an unarmed society. Even if I don't carry a gun.

-scheherazade

Yeah, he isn't resisting much and it does make her look stronger and the throws look cleaner than they really would in reality... there is an element of choreography, but in most cases it's for practical purposes, to avoid unnecessary injury, not for aesthetics.

But then i quite like the aesthetics too. It's dancing. I think I always enjoyed Ju Jitsu more for the workout, history and artistry of it than for actual self defence.

"Yet it is how they were ultimately defeated."

Really? Here we are, 70 years after the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.... and yet we still have Nazis (hell, there's practically one in the white house). So no, they weren't ultimately defeated.

"When you express your support for nazis, you're not just saying you have an alternative viewpoint"

Woah, woah, woah! There's a pretty big difference between saying it's not ok to assault someone and expressing support for them. No-one here supports Nazis, but they do have a right to speak, even if what they have to say is abhorrent.

Of course, they don't have a right to be listened to, and we have the right to tell them to go fuck themselves.

"I can justify breaking the law to punch a nazi in the same way i can justify breaking the law to protest a fascist government. "

The law has nothing to do with it. It is unethical to assault someone simply for stating their beliefs.

I will grant you that if the Nazis ever get into power, an armed resistance would be moral. But there is a world of difference between expressing a thought (no matter how vile) and committing an action.