Yes, I plan to upgrade the time continuum as well. I am thinking about 1 timeflow for work, and 4 for gaming.

>> ^residue:

Would it be ok to practice your trumpet playing at the monument? How about having an inpromptu game of flag football with your friend in the monument? The point is when you're bothering other people in a place generally considered to be quiet you're infringing on other people's rights to not be hassled. Like Shepppard pointed out earlier.
>> ^Skeeve:
Just throwing this out there, but doesn't it say something about a society when its monuments (let alone monuments to liberty) are so worshiped and sacred that there are laws made to enforce their sanctity?
When monuments that should be inherently joyful and full of wonder become places where only 'sober and respectful reflection' is allowed something is wrong.



Yes and Yes. As long as you abide by any noise ordinances and don't encroach on someone else's personal space.
Of course, your question isn't of any honest inquiry, but of a logical fallacy of the false continuum sort.
There is no subjective right to "not be hassled".

As the Kinsey research discovered, most humans' sexuality resides somewhere along a continuum between heterosexual and homosexual in terms of sexual orientation. I would not be surprised if the same is true for gender identity, as indicated by men who wear cologne and women who watch pro wrestling. [sic]

I am sorry, but this is not funny. And I have no idea why some many of you voted for this except he mentions he likes Ron Paul and calls Trump out. He barely even called him out... Trump bankrupted a casino people. That is the business equivalent of an oxymoron. It is a violation of the space-time continuum.

His logic is false. He's suggesting that the (asserted) 1% difference is a measure of a movement on a clear continuum of awesomeness, like the chimp ability to swing in trees is somehow less than ours, and that such a direction to continue evolving exists.

A better comparison would have been in another direction, like comparing amoeba to chimps, and then asking again if it's such a surprise that humans and chimps share 99% (or whatever) DNA. In that light, not really surprising at all.

Very disappointing for someone of his stature to make such a poor argument.

>> ^deathcow:

bad ass!!
dream theater influence much?


Yeah, dude's a total ripoff! Sounds exactly like Dream Theater's keyboardist Jordan Rud-... oh wait.

KnivesOut? Since KnivesOut only had one word (promote) in his comment, I suppose you mean someone else, and since I used the dreaded f-word once in my comment, is my comment the "profane rant" to which you refer? Oh well... I would perhaps agree that it was snarky and in a mocking and sarcastic tone, and perhaps not very polite, but "Profane rant"? Hardly.

Anyway, I think you misunderstood the "why do you want us to burn in hell" question that the hosts in the video asked Mark, they werent complaining that he disagreed with them or that he didn't like their opinions, they are atheists, thats what you would expect from any believer. What they did was to ask an honest question: WHY? it wasnt a pleading whimpering "ooh please dont attack our precious,frail belief/disbelief!" Quite the contrary, they wanted him to elaborate and explain why.

Like them, I am not frightened or threatened in any way by the expression of beliefs contrary to my own, in fact I welcome it. But If I found them to be faulty in their reasoning. Like your rather arrogant claim that Mark, surely a dedicated Christian if there ever was one, had no idea what "true faith" was, and that you could tell us. If its all faith anyway, how is Mark, or anyone else supposed to know the difference? Its all based on arbitrary interpretations of mistranslated text, and a good chunk of wishful thinking. Your true faith is probably blasphemy to mark, who knows?

And deciding which one of you is right , is like using a third chicken to see which of the two first were kicking in the right direction.


Lastly, Please dont make the false comparison suggesting MSNBC is the "FOX news of the left". Its not. Its biased as hell, but its nothing like fox. It doesnt pretend to be balanced, it doesnt systematically lie and distort and its hosts are not insane conspiracy nuts. Compared to FOX, MSNBC is actually fair and balanced.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

KnivesOut - profane rants accomplish nothing in these kinds of discussions. Perhaps your passions run high and you feel your beliefs are 'under assault' merely because I presented a different perspective. But is not the argument of these atheists a condemnation of such broad-brushed insult/attack screeds? Is not their initial point, "Hey - why are you thinking bad things about us just because we believe something you don't?" I happen to agree with that.
So then, is it not innately hypocritical to claim immunity from such attacks but to then turn around and attack someone because they believe something you don't? If you agree with that message, then should you not practice it? Isn't that what atheists are always complaining about in regards to religious followers - that they don't practice what they preach? Why should we take any atheist seriously if they complain about Christians telling him he's 'going to hell', but then calls Christians a bunch of monsters?
It is the presentation of these intolerant positions that bugs me on both sides. Looking at the religious world, there is clearly a continuum of people who range from the truly admirable to the wicked scoundrel. That isn't God's fault. Likewise, in the "atheist world" there are people who are truly admirable and people who are wicked scoundrels. That isn't the Universe's fault. People are people, and in any population you are going to have both ends of the spectrum represented by respectively sized proportions.
It intellectually dishonest to get all "FOX News" or "MSNBC" and use the extremes to condemn the whole. There's some great things about religious faith. They do a lot of good things, and help a lot of people. And no - not all religious help "holds your sandwich hostage"; much of it is completely gratis. To throw the baby out with the bath water does not encourage people to take the atheist position seriously any more so than a Christian who says they love their neighbor while telling them they're going to hell. Both stand equally guilty in my view of rank hypocrisy.

KnivesOut - profane rants accomplish nothing in these kinds of discussions. Perhaps your passions run high and you feel your beliefs are 'under assault' merely because I presented a different perspective. But is not the argument of these atheists a condemnation of such broad-brushed insult/attack screeds? Is not their initial point, "Hey - why are you thinking bad things about us just because we believe something you don't?" I happen to agree with that.

So then, is it not innately hypocritical to claim immunity from such attacks but to then turn around and attack someone because they believe something you don't? If you agree with that message, then should you not practice it? Isn't that what atheists are always complaining about in regards to religious followers - that they don't practice what they preach? Why should we take any atheist seriously if they complain about Christians telling him he's 'going to hell', but then calls Christians a bunch of monsters?

It is the presentation of these intolerant positions that bugs me on both sides. Looking at the religious world, there is clearly a continuum of people who range from the truly admirable to the wicked scoundrel. That isn't God's fault. Likewise, in the "atheist world" there are people who are truly admirable and people who are wicked scoundrels. That isn't the Universe's fault. People are people, and in any population you are going to have both ends of the spectrum represented by respectively sized proportions.

It intellectually dishonest to get all "FOX News" or "MSNBC" and use the extremes to condemn the whole. There's some great things about religious faith. They do a lot of good things, and help a lot of people. And no - not all religious help "holds your sandwich hostage"; much of it is completely gratis. To throw the baby out with the bath water does not encourage people to take the atheist position seriously any more so than a Christian who says they love their neighbor while telling them they're going to hell. Both stand equally guilty in my view of rank hypocrisy.

As I understand it that law is loosely interpreted given the circumstances. Sure peace officers are to uphold the law 24/7 but when they are out to dinner with their families? If an officer is ill equipped to deal with the situation then they should differ to those better equipped.

I'm also fairly certain that the laws applicable to officers differs from state.

As for this "If anything, by your brethren who now think you're a pussy," bullshit; courage is doing the right thing when everyone else is doing the wrong thing. Meaning don't let peer pressure or fictive kinship affect the way you handle a situation. It clouds judgment and muddies the waters making it impossible to uphold the law objectively.

While not the best source it is very interesting to see opinions of those who stand in the line of duty. Of the more cognitive writers in the forum linked below, most of those seem to agree that being a good witness is the best way for an off duty officer to uphold the law.

http://www.wikilaw3k.org/forum/Law-Enforcement-Police/Police-Officers-when-off-duty-346696.htm

>> ^Payback:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
There's a use of force continuum for a reason.
Just because we can't see what is going on doesn't mean that the officers use of a weapon is warranted.
What I saw was an escalation in force that was unwarranted which ended in the officer putting the lives of the perpetrator and his at risk. He was outnumbered and practically waylaying on a drunken idiot who was on the ground with friends who were there.
Here's how I would have handled the situation ask them to leave upon which no acquiescence I would contact the police and tell them there is a drunk and disorderly person on the property which I am protecting.
Being an off duty cop working security means that if you make an arrest that's double the paperwork. There's paperwork for the client in your contracted capacity and then paperwork for the police in your official capacity. Fuck that, if I'm off duty then the guys working that night can do the official paperwork.

A cop is a cop on duty or off. Like teachers, they are held to a higher standard than regular careers. Unlike the rest of us they do NOT have the right to ignore laws being broken. Like everyone else, they also do not have the right to break the law, but I was just pointing out a specific, important difference.
If you were a cop, and you did what you said you would, you could be penalized in some way. If anything, by your brethren who now think you're a pussy.

Just curious about your post -- you know that you are in agreement with the thing you quoted, right? That the original poster said that the escalation of force was unwarranted?

In reply to this comment by Payback:
>> ^NordlichReiter:

There's a use of force continuum for a reason.
Just because we can't see what is going on doesn't mean that the officers use of a weapon is warranted.
What I saw was an escalation in force that was unwarranted which ended in the officer putting the lives of the perpetrator and his at risk. He was outnumbered and practically waylaying on a drunken idiot who was on the ground with friends who were there.
Here's how I would have handled the situation ask them to leave upon which no acquiescence I would contact the police and tell them there is a drunk and disorderly person on the property which I am protecting.
Being an off duty cop working security means that if you make an arrest that's double the paperwork. There's paperwork for the client in your contracted capacity and then paperwork for the police in your official capacity. Fuck that, if I'm off duty then the guys working that night can do the official paperwork.


A cop is a cop on duty or off. Like teachers, they are held to a higher standard than regular careers. Unlike the rest of us they do NOT have the right to ignore laws being broken. Like everyone else, they also do not have the right to break the law, but I was just pointing out a specific, important difference.

If you were a cop, and you did what you said you would, you could be penalized in some way. If anything, by your brethren who now think you're a pussy.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

There's a use of force continuum for a reason.
Just because we can't see what is going on doesn't mean that the officers use of a weapon is warranted.
What I saw was an escalation in force that was unwarranted which ended in the officer putting the lives of the perpetrator and his at risk. He was outnumbered and practically waylaying on a drunken idiot who was on the ground with friends who were there.
Here's how I would have handled the situation ask them to leave upon which no acquiescence I would contact the police and tell them there is a drunk and disorderly person on the property which I am protecting.
Being an off duty cop working security means that if you make an arrest that's double the paperwork. There's paperwork for the client in your contracted capacity and then paperwork for the police in your official capacity. Fuck that, if I'm off duty then the guys working that night can do the official paperwork.


A cop is a cop on duty or off. Like teachers, they are held to a higher standard than regular careers. Unlike the rest of us they do NOT have the right to ignore laws being broken. Like everyone else, they also do not have the right to break the law, but I was just pointing out a specific, important difference.

If you were a cop, and you did what you said you would, you could be penalized in some way. If anything, by your brethren who now think you're a pussy.

>> ^schlub:

This video doesn't even show the guy getting hit. Yes, it shows the off-duty cop swinging a baton, but you can't actually see it hit the guy (meaning, you can't see what part of the guy's body is being hit, nor can you see how hard he might be getting hit). Also, you can't see him use the "pepper spray" either. All you see is a can in his hand - and we learn through narration that he was sprayed -- since the camera's pointed at the dash at the time. She says he has a bloody lip, but, you can't see the blood in the video.
Additionally, you can't see what the guy on the ground is doing.
I'm just sayin's all
Just because a cop uses force to subdue someone doesn't mean it's an abuse of power.


There's a use of force continuum for a reason.

Just because we can't see what is going on doesn't mean that the officers use of a weapon is warranted.

What I saw was an escalation in force that was unwarranted which ended in the officer putting the lives of the perpetrator and his at risk. He was outnumbered and practically waylaying on a drunken idiot who was on the ground with friends who were there.

Here's how I would have handled the situation ask them to leave upon which no acquiescence I would contact the police and tell them there is a drunk and disorderly person on the property which I am protecting.

Being an off duty cop working security means that if you make an arrest that's double the paperwork. There's paperwork for the client in your contracted capacity and then paperwork for the police in your official capacity. Fuck that, if I'm off duty then the guys working that night can do the official paperwork.

Link to Original Story
First of all its a school, I have never in my life known schools to be a place where you can say whatever you want. Kids usually got in trouble for saying anything slightly crude or that could be construed as being disrespectful. Hell, one time I was waiting in line to leave the lunch room for recess when I sneezed. It was 'determined' I did this on purpose to interrupt the teacher that was telling us the same shit she always told us when we left the lunch room. I ended up having to spend recess sitting in the dirt facing a chain link fence, where some joyless shrew would yell at you if you, spoke, moved, picked at the grass, or looked in the direction of the playing kids.

So in the continuum of shit teachers and administrators get butt-hurt about, some intolerant bigoted kids spouting their dumbass beliefs and then getting in trouble doesn't even move the needle on my outrage meter. Maybe if I thought for a second this was the most liberal school when it came to free speech I'd buy their argument for a day. But seeing as they bitch about the teacher violating the student's free speech rights in one breath and then bitch about the teacher wearing an anti-gay bullying shirt in the next I'm inclined to believe they're full of shit.

Was it completely fair for the teacher to remove the offending student from the class room for his intolerant views and not the others? Probably not, but it doesn't make it okay for a student to sit there and say what kinds of people he hates.

@csnel3
@kulpims
@GeeSussFreeK
@NetRunner
@draak13
@gwiz665
@budzos
@Bidouleroux
@everyone else here
And while it is true the vulcans have emotions which if left unchecked can perpetuate acts of chaos, even logic could condone the acts of intervention under certain circumstances. Like what was mentioned earlier with transporting the inhabitants of an entire colony to another planet. Logic would dictate that saving a lives rather than having them face extinction, especially when taking such action takes minimal effort on the part of those who intervene is a far better outcome than ignoring them and moving on. some of those ants Q steps on could have made great stides, some Q are even cautious enough to look out for ant hills so they would not step on them. Remember that Q himself does not represent the continuum and the entire Q as a whole.

Now just so I am entirely clear here, I am not against the principles of the prime directive, it does have its importance. But it seems whenever this debate is drawn both parties in which are for or against the directive are under the impression the directive has to be the one sided stance. That is what I am against. It should indeed be a directive, a consideration to keep in regard, but upholding to a non debatable stature leaves no room for leniency, any more than abandoning it and following a reckless moral compass as those pro directive would imagine it to be. What the directive needs is a middle ground. A set of further principles which leaves room for making a rational and logical decision to intervene under appropriate circumstances.

I was going to save this for a future sift, but this seems like the best time to place this:



I fear that point the most. Is it really free thinking if everyone shares the same idea? Unity may bring about a positive force, but it will always need quarrelsome debate to establish its principles, When people need to resort to an order, to establish the prime directive as a one way street, is it unified logic, or a dictated mindset? And if it is either one, what happens when everything else becomes a one way street? even in the optimistic future Roddenberry Imagined, his future did not have a perfect race. Every race had its own strengths and weaknesses. And some of their strengths to others seemed like their weaknesses, but when they worked with and learned with one another, it provided a harmony of thought, principle and the idea that even Their "enlightened" principles needed adjustment from others.

So my point to all this is the prime directive should be seen as a recommended precaution which leaves room for debate, not a dogma, and certainly not something that should be taken lightly. With that said, I think I am past the point of sharing the video, and this should really be moved to sift talks so we can further *discuss this in greater detail.

@kasinator

Replicating weapons is not a theory. In fact, all weapons and ship are replicated except for those parts that use materials that can't be replicated (like latinum). Of course, normally there are safety lockouts that prevent you from replicating weapons, plus you would need a replication pattern.

But anyway, my point concerning the Prime Directive was that, as a Vulcan precept it is not primarily concerned with morality per se. When Spock tells Kirk that his holodeck solution is logical, he is not saying in any way that it is a "good" or "bad" solution. Spock doesn't take morality into consideration, only logic. Thus, while Kirk's solution is "logical" in light of the moral dilemma he faces (that he created for himself) it is not a situation that Spock would get himself into because Spock would not have deliberated on whether or not he must try to save the natives in the first place. And it's not like Spock doesn't have emotions. Even pure-blood Vulcans have emotions, they just shove them aside most of the time. To a Vulcan, acting on emotions invites chaos sooner or later and chaos is inherently unpredictable. Instead of trying to predict the unpredictable and play god, you decide not to interfere.

But then we kind of see the reverse with the Q for a while. They are so high-up in the food chain that they do not consider their interventions as disruptive any more than we consider our destroying of an ant colony disruptive. After all, ants as a whole will adapt and survive in one way or another. But still, even they must admit that they cannot predict what will happen to their own continuum and so they realize they can't stop themselves from evolving without losing what made them Q in the first place. Their "Prime Directive" of not artificially ascending lower lifeforms (except Riker for a while) into Q stems mostly from apathy towards non-Q things but also from self-preservation, as they cannot predict what would happen if non-evolved Q arrived en masse. Thus the same could be said of the Federation's Prime Directive, even if the self-preservation aspect is unavowed.