>> ^deathcow:
First you give us the continuum transfunctioner, then we give you oral pleasure


And then?

First you give us the continuum transfunctioner, then we give you oral pleasure

I think Joe Ping Pong is as much a shill as Joe the Plumber. He actually managed to make these geeks/nerds look cool, ripping a hole in the time-irony continuum, turning childhood losers into bullies for a brief instant, for the enjoyment of giddy adults who were also bullied during their younger years.

This was setup. Just think of the advantages of successfully pulling this off. Those people will be talking about that ComicCon for years to come.

Caring Continuum

That hardly looks like a time paradox unraveling the space-time continuum!

While they are fighting with him... they could have been killed or worse maimed, because they were dealing with him without watching what else is going on around them.

The simple solution is if you cant make the arrest successfully with out having to beat the shit out of some one, then do not make the arrest at that time. Look for a time when the circumstances will better favor a successful arrest.
IE when you have more backup.

What this appears to be is some one resisting arrest and then being stepped through the force continuum. There is a fallacy that violence will work, this is not true in all cases. Some people will revert to primal instinct and therefore fight you every time you use violence to force them to do something.

Violence and Violence equals more violence. (however it sometimes may be needed understandably)

As you are punching some one in the stomach telling them to stop fighting stop fighting... that makes no sense, and it perpetuates the situation.

If its a minor offense that does not require lethal or hard physical force to arrest then let them go, and later execute a warrant for search, and arrest on that persons abode, go in hard and fast in the middle of the night.

>> ^imstellar28:
You are missing a very, very subtle concept which is critical to the outcome of your example. In this situation, the two people made a social contract: that one would pick an apple while the other held a rope.

I don't discount contract, but you assume that we have already determined who/what may enter such a contract. The entire point is that we agree that such contracts exist, and that they function by moral rules about which we agree, but the who and how are in dispute.

If we take Doc_M's position that a fertilized egg is a person, and that person is acting in a very clear and definite manner, "attempting" to grow a new human, and the mother elects to assist this process for some period of time, say 5months. If the fetus is a person, then by their joint action they have entered into an implicit social contract, it is not different from my example. If the fetus is a person it has the contractual obligation of the mother to carry it to term, just as I am required to stick around until you get down from picking apples.

Species are the set of animals who can successfully reproduce--thus as hard as it might be from appearance, it would be possible to separate the two.

Speciation is an abstraction based on the religious presupposition of types, it's not as clean as you seem to want it, "species" lines get crossed all the time, the mule is a textbook example. This position also means you would side with Doc_M on personhood at conception, since that's part of the species continuum you use as criteria, making that choice has a long list of absurd consequences.

Your further assertion that morality is only within species, is an arbitrary choice just as much as any other. The fact that predator and pray, as individuals, have conflicting interests in no way forbids morality from effecting other interactions between members of disparate species. Please explain to me why a member of another species, say little green men from mars, should be a priori denied moral relevance.

>> ^imstellar28:
the morality (and thus legality) of an issue cannot be derived from arbitrary decisions.

The issue, in not "right to survive", as you suggest, but moral relevance. The basis for moral relevance is always arbitrary. We do not assign moral relevance to all life ( microbes, etc), nor to all human cells ( finger nails, appendix, cancer), nor all minds ( cows, dogs, chimps). There exists no innate discrete criteria for moral relevance.

We, at some point define a group we call persons, and that is the criteria we use. The question is simply can we agree on a definition, or do we abandon any criteria for rights and justice?

At some point in the continuum of life we acknowledge a distinct person, and we have responsibility as a consequence of that acknowledgment. An analogy would be that you and I decide to do something together, such as pick fruit from a tall tree, in which my participation is necessary for your safety, let us say I am holding the rope you are hanging from. I have the right not to get involved, or to back out while we are getting the ropes ready, etc, but once I am holding you 50ft of the ground with a rope your moral relevance overrides my freedom to abandon you. You do not have a right to have me hold the rope, but I do not have the right to let go either.

Well i wasn't familiar with that argument but after reading about it i fail to see it's relevance...



Your trying to tell me that aborting a fetus is the moral equivalent to excising a tumor, on the basis of it having the same level of sentience...


I don't know how you can have it both ways. It isn't a 'heap' of wheat... something IS sentient or it is not. Your own statement states that is the fundamental principle.



My argument is not an argument at all... I just want to know what makes you so sure that a fetus isn't self aware? You are confident beyond any doubt... on this issue I am certainly not... hence my question... the "continuum fallacy" i don't even see as applicable. Unlike wheat... when a human becomes self aware... they do in fact become... 'self aware'... When... 'nothing' becomes something... you seem to base your argument around it... and all I'm asking is how you know that enough to it's OK to exercise this tumor... vs. it's no longer OK this is now a human.

Basically nonsense? I was trying to illustrate, for your edification, the false continuum fallacy, which is the foundation of your argument.

My mind exploded when the space time continuum ripped up in the top left corner. Future-Beaker plowing over Past-Beaker! the implications of this are astounding...

>> ^EDD:
I GOT IT - GERMANY IS NEXT TO FRANCE AND SWITZERLAND! IT'S THE LHC's FAULT!!! THEY'RE BRAEKING THE FABRIC OF REALITY!!!
Seriously though, it's also noticeable that it gets worse by the end of the video. You should really try do something about it before you enter into another timeline and disrupt the space-time continuum.
I also immensely like how this isn't in any channels.


I was 20 mins late for work today, too. I blame that on the LHC as well...

I GOT IT - GERMANY IS NEXT TO FRANCE AND SWITZERLAND! IT'S THE LHC's FAULT!!! THEY'RE BRAEKING THE FABRIC OF REALITY!!!

Seriously though, it's also noticeable that it gets worse by the end of the video. You should really try do something about it before you enter into another timeline and disrupt the space-time continuum.

I also immensely like how this isn't in any channels.

I will repeat this:

Read my long comment.

Under no circumstances are you to harm a private citizen.

The force continuum:
1. Politley ask them to do something.
2. Order them.
3. soft physical force (touch, grab arm) - arrest begins
4. hard physical force (body grab, restraining) - detaining begins - do best not to injure.
5. Lethal Force - Only in dire emergencies: Defined as Life Threatening.

He should have used soft physical force, as they did when they arrested her.

He assaulted a private citizen on public property and should be punished for such.

Ruining the space/time continuum.