Tags for this video have been changed from 'waterpark, watersides, giant, biggest, resort, hangar, airship, germany, indoor' to 'waterpark, watersides, giant, biggest, resort, hangar, germany, indoor, amazing places' - edited by lucky760

I don't disagree that the concept of if you hit someone they can / could hit back. I do think that a professional athlete hitting an assumedly not very physical person is way out of line. Ideally neither hits and if they do they are both guilty of assault. Another thought in this area is that people trained in martial arts usually don't use them unless it's a last resort.

Here's a instance of police showing amazing RESTRAINT before being forced to shoot a civilian for good cause.
3 officers are violently gang attacked by a family of 7+ in a Walmart parking lot. Multiple times the officers are taken to the ground by multiple assailants, but they continue to try only non-lethal means of control for over 3 minutes of getting beaten down, at one point one cop actually kicks another in the head in the scuffle. They only resort to using lethal force when one assailant manages to take a cop's gun and shoots repeatedly, hitting the cop. Only then does another officer use lethal force against that single attacker, with a SINGLE controlled shot, then goes back to non-lethal methods of restraint on the remaining crowd. These officers acted the way I want all officers to act.

There's fairly graphic death, so it's snuff, so I won't sift it, but it can be found here....Warning, violent graphic death.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv5Cbgn4TOU

Not so; the biggest increase is in the secular. One area that remains in the religious majority, however, is the poor, the lost, the desperate and the frightened. But, as education and intellect increases so, too, does the need for answers to serious questions without resorting to myths and brainwashing.

I don't see that there is anything he could have done wrong that would cause that behavior. The only wrong thing he could do that would still result in the light shining is to reverse the hot and neutral (assuming all he did was swap the fan for the light). That's a very, very bad thing to do, but wouldn't cause this in an otherwise correct circuit. I don't think anyways. I'd have to resort to drawing pictures to figure it out.

This is probably a good thing because it means he discovered a potentially dangerous problem in the previous circuit. There's lots of ways you can wire up two switches a light and a GFI socket that appear to work but are actually dangerous mistakes of varying degrees.

ed: My suspicion is that the whole circuit is wired to a different breaker on each end, which is a mistake I've seen more than once in the few years I did this stuff and a giant pain in the ass, not to mention dangerous... though he would be lucky not to discover that while changing the light, unless he just turned off all the breakers or something.

If you have money then it can snow and snow and snow and your perfectly fine. Basically running warm water under the cement and also keeping an insulation area on your roof around 40 degrees or so... Of course this stuff isn't exactly available to your Average Joe...so...

Also, I don't think the piped water (though there is electric versions as well, but then you have to worry about extreme electric bills too, if I remember right) would work at all when you start to reach a certain sub-zero temperature unless you can REALLY turn the temperature up on them (and then these start to cost money via gas...).

Every so often you run into people that are super rich (or just make good use of their money and resources) and actually have this stuff installed (not just ski resorts or certain areas)... I forget how much it costs, but you can get it if you really, really get a lot every year and you're getting afraid about your house or something else getting ruined...

Perhaps you ought to try to understand something and be less anxious to be irritatingly unlike your nom de Sift,

or

resort to your overworked usage of "...."

As a last resort: *backup=[...snipped...]

I think it depends on the person. Some will see the 'admonishment' as a challenge offered by those with no power (remember Chingalera?) and take it as an invitation to become insanely abusive and outrageously vulgar. Others might see it as helpful to understand how their own actions are perceived by others and change the offending behavior.
It would be nice if Trance could admit why he did what he does (to himself at least), but it's far more important that he stop, understanding or not. IF he can't get the message from the community, the rules should be applied. He's had that clear message now, so the next time there should be no warning, just 2 week ban. If there's a next time after that, it's intentional or unconscious, either way that would indicate he won't stop, and at that point removal is the only option. I hope it doesn't come to that.
I don't like that many 'dissenting voices' have either left or been banned, but it's NEVER because of their viewpoint, it's because of their inappropriate actions (perhaps born from the frustration of being a lone dissenter on many topics? but that's a reason, not an excuse).
As for Dag/Lucky, I would hope their intervention is saved as a last resort, but having a Sift-Dad in charge to settle problems we can't settle amongst ourselves is a GOOD thing...if used in moderation.

I think we agree completely with Sam Harris in that Islam is in desperate need of a reformation. I won't bring Reza Aslan into this as I haven't read him, and it seems to be tangential at best.

But, acknowledge what you just said when you said that Islam is in need of reformation. You are saying what Sam is saying: That Islam contains some horrible ideas, and people are acting on those ideas, and we need to find a way to marginalize those ideas within the canon of Islam.

We could end the disagreement right there, except for where we stand in history at this point. If Christianity had undergone its reformation in a post nuclear arsenals world, who knows where we would be. It is because of this that it behooves everyone to encourage this reformation of Islam, and potentially to limit their access to apocalyptic weaponry until such a reformation has taken place. That's a different discussion though.

I think Sam's position is that one of the potential motivations behind suicide bombing is martyrdom and jihad. Real belief in those particular dogma alone is sufficient to justify suicide attacks. There are definitely plenty of terrorist actions that take place for completely non-religious reasons, and I bet that the bulk of them combine the two. But that doesn't refute Sam's point.

As for your last bit about literal interpretations, I don't agree there either, at least not entirely. How could you possibly explain the inquisition without resorting to what one would now consider to be fundamentalist readings of the texts? The same fundamentals you're saying weren't in vogue until 100 years ago is the very propaganda used to recruit soldiers to the caliphate's armies centuries ago. In any case it seems unrelated to the discussion when scriptural literalism came about, the fact is that it exists, making it more important that some books contain really bad ideas.

I agree with you, although my perspective has been changed recently due to the relationship I'm in. Never underestimate the power of love to make a parent completely blind and oblivious to the bad things their children do. Especially single mothers with strong maternal feelings who believe they're doing what's best for their child by never being critical of them...

On the plus side I've been experimenting with methods of child discipline, my partner now believes I've been studying parenting books since I'm getting good results, but in reality I've just been indulging my inner-scientist and figuring out what works best without resorting to a good beating

@Asmo

You ought to be careful about accusing others of ignorance when you have to resort to googling "islam homogenous" and spamming us with the first links you find. Oh my, talk about making a fool of yourself.

All the PhDs in the world can't alter reality; personally I'd be suspicious of the intellectual credentials of anyone who wasted their career on so vacuous and puerile a subject. Every widespead philosophy will inevitably factionalise to some extent; this is hardly relevant where the objections are to its core tenets and universal beliefs. Remind me, which of the major sects is the good one?

Incidentally, I skipped over this before but the claim that there are 1.5 billion muslims in the world is an outright lie. Most of that number are muslim in the same sense that winston smith is a loyal supporter of ingsoc.

It's tedious to have to continually restate the case against islam in every discussion where the lazy and dishonest leap to the defence of an ideology they've failed to adequately research. Suffice to say that any liberal, modern thinker who had, say, read the qur'an, or looked into the life and character of mohammed, or talked to muslims about what they actually believe, which is never what they reveal to unsympathetic ears; would hesitate before condemning all anti-islamic sentiment as bigotry.

The first Mass Effect game had a fantastic writeup on combat in space, and why it was supposed to be a more anti-hollywood, incredibly boring event in that universe.
Most encounters could be resolved in seconds from hundreds of thousands of kilometers (well outside visual range), and it only took a single shot to end the encounter, either through instantly disabling critical systems, or overheating the heatsinks onboard (which were constantly venting excess cosmic and solar radiation as it was), causing any sort of energy shielding to be impractical for similar reasons.
Nearly all military encounters in space were ultimately stalemates, because things could be resolved so immediately and with such deadly finality, it forced the space-faring civilizations to ask questions first and shoot as a last resort. I can't remember the exact description, but essentially a "fight" in space was two or more opposing ships simply showing up and sitting around doing nothing until the situation resolved itself, or one side had clearly more guns than the other (but there may have even been reasons for why the latter result wasn't common either, but it's been so long I can't recall).
Regardless, I love that vision of space travel and hypothetical military maneuvers because it portrayed the reality of such events from a really hardcore scientific approach. Obviously the rest of the writing team was unable to work around those limitations, since the rest of that game and the rest of the series pretty much resorted back to the Star Wars formula almost immediately. I wish their writers had been as talented as the guy who constructed the universe and it's laws, because it was an amazingly refreshing take on sci-fi space travel.

If that's honestly the extent of your use of force, and they all were proper arrests on people who were also resisting (you only said one of them was resisting), and those you brandished at were armed and violently resisting, that sounds acceptable, but totally abnormal. I would guess that not all those you brandished at were armed threats.
EDIT:A good question....was every suspect you used force against convicted? If not, it seems you made a mistake and were a violent assailant to an 'innocent citizen' yourself, no? If there's no repercussion for those kinds of 'bad acts', how do you know it's wrong? (I'll answer, it seems you don't.)
My experience has been that cops brandish their weapons at anyone they think may be criminal, including those only guilty of 'contempt of cop', like me when a cop read my license plate wrong and assumed the car was stolen, so he violently threw me to the ground at gunpoint and violently handcuffed me (as tight as he could make them go) and acted like a douchebag bully until he realized his mistake. (I followed all his directions to the T without pause but was still treated like I was resisting.) Then there's no apology, in fact he said something more like 'You know why I did that, now go on your way or I'll find something else to arrest you for, and don't think about making a complaint, I know where you live now.' That's only one instance in my life out of many where cops did not act properly, due to no fault of my own. (I was not intimidated by his threat and did make a formal complaint anyway.)

That's 3 shootings (maybe 2 were the same cop?). It sounds like one may have been improper, shooting someone in the back is usually not acceptable, unless he had just been shooting at the cop and turned to run just before being shot, or was running at someone else that needed protecting. If he was not an immediate threat to someone, there was no reason to shoot him in the back rather than track him until he could be safely arrested.
It seems you have a problem understanding our position. We understand that 95% of interactions with cops are done properly and often respectfully. That does not excuse the other 5% by any means, just as it does not excuse someone from committing murder if they were a fine, upstanding citizen otherwise. Get it? It only takes one bad act to erase all your good acts. That's the way of the world. You can't say 'Yeah, I raped that 6 year old, but come on guys, I take good care of little old ladies the rest of the time, so it's fine.'. That doesn't play, neither does 'Most of the time we're good cops, so we should get a pass for those 'rare' times when we are terrible thugs and violent criminals.'
EDIT: It's not only deadly force that is inappropriately applied. You don't have to end up murdering the citizen to have acted inappropriately violent. I hope I'm not telling you something you don't know, only pointing out something you ignored.
The fact that you don't seem to think mandatory counseling is appropriate for those in 'authority' that have failed in their job (to protect citizens) and resorted to using force against citizens (yes, I consider that a fail, there's nearly always another option) is bothering. As I explained, it leaves you feeling it's 'us VS them' (which has been shown to be your mindset from your past comments) and that's terrible for someone in authority to think. I think you need counseling to fix that mindset, and find it troubling that you might disagree (yet are still in a position of power).

Gee, someone here is able to present a point w/o resorting to juvenile name-calling.

Lucky, imagine if you were a doctor and all you got to see on videosift were videos of doctors misbehaving...screwing with medicare, cutting off the wrong foot, leaving scalpels inside people's abdomens and you tried to say...hey, this is rare, there might be more to the story, that doctor was censured, etc.

In my 30 yrs of LE experience I don't see people getting beat up, or shot, or assaulted, or arrested for no reason.

But some people come along here and besmirch every single LE officer on the planet and say they are all corrupt, etc.

I have to defend the cops or at least show that these instances of misbehavior are rare.

Some of these commenters here are so angry you have to wonder what happened in their personal lives that they have all of this animus toward authority figures, which cops are.

See, I've worked with cops and I see what they do. The people here see a video and think they know everything about everything.

Just saying.

Also, I am not saying cops should be able to do anything at any time, etc. I believe cops should operate under the law and policies set up by their department.