search results matching tag: Irrational

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (59)     Sift Talk (8)     Blogs (4)     Comments (884)   

I have no words

New Rule: Distinction Deniers

newtboy says...

This is about where the line is...or if there's no line at all.
If some dude patted your behind, would you try to have them charged with rape, or even sexual assault? Would you even report the assault, or might it be unworthy of reporting?

What I take issue with is you repeat it doesn't matter until people get ridiculous prison terms or death, but when lives are ruined over nothing, or at most an innocent misunderstanding not corrected, too bad. Many, myself included, find that irrational and over-reactionary.
If someone treats you badly, you can't lambast them in the media from an anti nambla rally without some comeuppance, I think rightly.
Warning others outside of that guilt by association context is another matter.

ChaosEngine said:

"It's exactly what he said, they're both unacceptable, and he's trying to define the spectrum. "
But the spectrum already exists. It's already enshrined in law for a start. I don't need Maher to lecture me about it.

"Yes, if some dude broke my leg, yes I would appreciate that they didn't murder me. "
Of course. You'd probably still report them to the police for assault though?

"Please admit, it's at least imprecise to have a one-size-fits-all justice system. "
I have. Several times.

"If and when people are being sentenced to death and/or extreme prison terms, yeah, let's talk about proportionate response."

"The sentence for these crimes is different and that's correct."

"If Aziz Ansari ends up sharing a cell with Harvey Weinstein, I will 100% stand up and say "hang the fuck on, those two are NOT equivalent". "

"Believe it or not, I've been in a sexual encounter where I've been forced to ..."
What happened to you wasn't rape, agreed, but it wasn't far off. If the roles were reversed and you had sneakily taken off a condom, in some jurisdictions that WOULD be rape.

"I don't think it's crazy to not want her to lose her job, and not want to file criminal charges against her, --- and this is key --- because even though something happened that was non consensual, I don't consider what happened rape, and I would NEVER equate what happened to me to what happened to all of Weinstein's victims because they fall on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Neither one was okay, and one is worse than the other."

Why does it matter that it wasn't rape? It was still a violation of trust and one that could have had lifelong consequences for you.

If she did that to you, who's to say she won't do it again to someone else?

Again, I go back to the assault metaphor. Even if an assailant doesn't murder you, they're still a violent aggressor and a potential danger to others.

Or even at a lower degree still, if someone treats you badly or swindles you, are you not entitled to warn others?

If what happened to you happened to me, I would warn anyone I knew about that kind of behaviour.

New Rule: Distinction Deniers

newtboy says...

Because it isn't, and a huge movement wants us to irrationally ignore that fact, to all our detriment. That's what his argument is about. That is never acceptable, and should be railed against with vigor.

ChaosEngine said:

Sure, but why does he then spend the rest of the argument talking about how one isn't as bad as the other?

Keanu Reeves Tactical 3 gun shooting

newtboy says...

Because one "feminist" decided to attack everyone in the video because she sees athletic women working together (fully clothed, mind you) as, in her words, "only sex workers", requiring her to launch a derisive attack on any male near them, labeling them creeps, and against the women labeling them as unprofessional hooters girls and now sex workers.

Slut shaming women based on insulting mistaken assumptions and their athleticism is not feminist...imo it's not even rational. Trying to shame men for the women's fitness is just irrational.

...besides, what's wrong with shooting at children? ;-)

Payback said:

Why the fuck is everyone on about the women and no one is noticing all the child-sized targets Keanu was blasting away at...

How the Alt-Right Trolls

newtboy says...

Pardon me, I did not.
I didn't throw out ridiculous claims, then ignore rational replies to move on to more irrational and factually incorrect claims.

1)People who ignore reality are insane.
2)see 1
3)I'm pedantic? Did you learn something then?

I didn't address why people voted for Trump, that's your tangent to run down. I just mentioned that many who had have now seen their errors in trusting him (about whatever they believed) and no longer support him.

I see now why I ignored you before, you really are insufferable and not worth discussion with. Enjoy patting yourself on the back in smug self congratulations for such a witty insult.

BK33 stood me up on the date he arranged after promising me steak and dancing. Fuck him. Turned out he's a Russian troll, not a real person.

Asmo said:

Alrighty, so when challenged with an obvious flaw in your original post (ie. posting in a video about how the alt right trolls while using the exact same methodology), you change up the terms on engagement rather than answer the original criticism...

1. Short quip about how said boxed people are insane.
2. Go on about why said boxed people are mentally deficient, then crap on about Trump.
3. Get in to a pedantic explanation about the 50% figure and whether or not it was entirely accurate.

None of which addresses my original criticism and further goes to show that you are doing exactly what this video is talking about.

I don't give a fuck about Trump or his supporters, and while I do agree there are likely some racists/crazy people in the mix, I theorise that they mostly voted for him because he was different. Which is neither here nor there, the video is a smug left winger pointing out what a bunch of pointy headed gits alt right trolls are and you prove that the left is equally capable of being smug, pointy headed and trollish gits... = \

I don't disagree with your discontent re: the parlous state of affairs in the US at the moment, and I have a great deal of sympathy for American's who don't want that orangutan representing them. But if you (collective left, not you personally) want to try and occupy a high ground and dismiss the alt right, you need to actually live up to the standards you use to castigate people like Bk33.

Homophobia makes no sense | Peter White

newtboy says...

Wasn't his whole shtick that men with erections aren't really irrational rape monsters? I guess that only goes for gay men. Hmmm.

JustSaying said:

Ok, this is far wiser than I thought.
'I trust a woman on her period way more than a guy with an erection'
Can I *doublepromote this wisdom?

No Signal And Black=Guns Drawn

newtboy says...

The driver has no idea what he's getting into when the cop is starting by violating procedure and using his weapon to pull over a car. The driver wants to go home after driving, see his family, make it to another day of life. If he feels he needs to shoot that cop drawing down on him over nothing to make sure he's safe...do it.
And I and others will stand here and support him for self defense while you have a conniption fit.

The only one making things unsafe here is the cop, who has made at least one if not more people unsupportive of other cops who may be doing their job properly and not with irrational or controlling fear causing them to put others lives in danger. If fear is the controlling factor in his actions, he absolutely should not be a law officer.

He will stand there while he receives dozens of complaints on his permanent record stopping him from ever being promoted, and while his trial for shooting an innocent person moves forward, and while his family leaves him due to the numerous death threats they receive, while he goes into hiding, and while normal citizens ridicule him daily for being exposed as a violent snowflake, etc.......I'm not sure what you're point was with that statement.

Esoog said:

The cop has no idea what he's getting into when he's doing his job and pulling over a car. He wants to go home after work, see his family, make it to another day of life. If he feels the need to pull his gun until he confirms the situation is safe, then do it!

And he will stand there while you hurl needless insults.

Optimistic Nihilism - Kurzgesagt

newtboy says...

I find it much more sad that people are willing to delude themselves with placating mythos that can't stand the slightest critical examinations than I find the fact that there's almost certainly no god(s) by any definition. Lack of a supreme being is not a scary thing to me in the least, but a capricious, judgmental, incomprehensible, vengeful god ready to cast immortal souls into hell for eternity over small rule infractions is horrifying.

Reality is scary. I get why people would hide their heads under the safety blanket of religion(s), I just disagree that it's any more useful against reality than hiding under a sheet is against home invaders. It might make you feel better because you can't see them, but that's all (unless they are as dumb as the bugblatter beast of Traal, who thinks if you can't see it, it can't see you).

I feel bad for your uncle, who it sounds like believes in god out of a fear instilled in him as a child. Consciously, it sounds like he understands it's an irrational belief, but fear makes people do irrational things all the time. Fear is the mind killer.

eric3579 said:

You keep thinking that so you don't get sad.

I have an uncle who told me that he believes because the idea of no god scares him. I appreciate that honesty. That makes sense to me. I however don't find the fact there is no god scary or sad. It just is. There are enough real things you could be scared or sad about.

Reduce Crime AND Save Money: Treat Addiction ...

ChaosEngine says...

The problem is that people are short-sighted. We HATE spending money on something if it doesn't
a) measurably improve my life in some way or
b) fix an obvious problem.
I'm guilty of this too.

Nice meal out? great!
Holiday? Fantastic!
New bike/snowboard/toy? Awesome!

Even if something breaks, your brain is ok with spending money to fix it.

"Damnit, the element broke in the oven! Ahh well, better go get a replacement"

But getting my car serviced? Ugh, it's running fine!
Intellectually, I know that spending some money now will save me more in the long run, but I am still irrationally annoyed by it.

Drug treatment is the same. If you spend money on drug treatment, crime doesn't get committed. Because crimes aren't being committed people see drug treatment as a waste of money.

Prevention is always harder to see the benefits of than cure.

Plus, it's REALLY easy to blame drug-related crime on drug users. It's easy political points, whereas saying you want to spend tax payer dollars on potential criminals? Admit it, even if you're liberal, reading that sentence triggers some mild outrage in your lizard brain.

New Rule: I Didn't Reproduce Day

CrushBug says...

That is not what I am talking about. As a parent, I get pissed at those parents as well. That is shitty parenting and it is their responsibility. You will note that I said "perceived problem".

I am talking about normal behaviors such as a child crying when they fall down. I am talking about a child being irrational at new hardship. I am talking about children being children. As parents we need to help our children learn and cope with new things. Children shouldn't be derided and dismissed.

That is what pisses me off about these people that think normal children should be kept from society and brought out "when they are adults". What a fucked up attitude. It says more about those adults, than it does about those children.

newtboy said:

That probably does get tiring fast....but not nearly as tiring or as fast as people's unrestrained, undisciplined children running amuck get tiring to those of us responsible enough to not make more unneeded people.

Turnabout's fair play.

Trolling A Homophobic Preacher

ChaosEngine says...

The dictionary disagrees with you
homophobia
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

But for the sake of argument, elaborate.

Why is being anti-gay different from homophobia? And why isn't this preacher homophobic?

He clearly has an aversion to homosexuality and is advocating discrimination against it. Unless you can provide a rational reason for this (hint: "because my imaginary friend said so" does not count as a rational argument), I'd say he falls squarely under the definition of homophobic.

bobknight33 said:

Being anti gay is not the same as homophobic.

The preacher is not homophobic.

Tabs v(ersu)s Spaces from Silicon Valley S3E6

MilkmanDan says...

@lucky760 -
I still think Judge is actually presenting the situation pretty accurately. If you look up online forum posts about tabs vs spaces, the file size thing is brought up as a pro for tabs very regularly.

While it is technically true, you're right that it doesn't make much sense because the difference is *tiny*, so conforming to the standard of wherever you are working is vastly more important.

BUT, that doesn't stop individual programmers from being (irrationally) passionate in their preferences.

Another dynamic that is (correctly) displayed in the show in my opinion is the difference between a big corporate environment, working as an individual in a large team of programmers as compared with having a project that starts out as a the brainchild of one person and grows into a small team.

The show is about the latter. In that scenario, a programmer / software engineer ends up trying to also be a manager of a team, in spite of the fact that he isn't really built for it. In a big corporate environment, they are well aware that style issue conflicts can turn into big time wasters unless they set out guidelines clearly at the outset. But that sort of micro-managing is NOT what a pure engineer type is comfortable doing.

Basically, I think that tabs vs spaces is completely a personal preference issue if you're working alone OR on a small team that don't interact with each other's code much. And even on a large team, either choice is fine BUT it becomes important to conform to the standards of the team as a whole.

Cop Pepper Spraying Teenage Girl

Jerykk says...

I don't really understand why you think that ordering her to sit down would have somehow made her cooperate. The video shows her repeatedly ignoring everything the cops say. Her behavior wouldn't just magically change if the cops said "I order you to sit down." You even said yourself that an irrational girl isn't going to act rational.

As for her posing "zero threat," that's not true at all. She was throwing a tantrum and kicking the cops. They needed to detain her because she was a suspect in a crime and she was physically resisting, posing a threat to others and herself. Just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean they are harmless.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. You may have the legal right to ignore a cop that isn't officially arresting you but from a practical standpoint, that's a pretty stupid thing to do. It makes much more sense to be civil and cooperative, just like in any other interaction with human beings.

The fact that you proudly proclaim that you don't talk to cops shows a pretty clear bias against cops. Then you say you hope you get arrested so you can make money. With that mentality, it's pretty clear that you aren't interested in peaceful resolutions.

newtboy said:

I do. If they told her to sit, and she sat, problems solved.
She continuously said "don't touch me". They didn't need to if they told her to sit instead of letting her get on her bike and ride it. She clearly had an issue with being touched, they could have recognized that and used it, instead they exacerbated things.
You are expecting an irrational girl to act rationally. Impossible. That doesn't make her right.

You are also focusing on the part that, while more harsh than necessary imo, was understandable and you're intentionally ignoring the part most people find outrageous, macing her when she posed zero threat. Defend that.

If I'm not under arrest, I'm leaving. I don't talk to cops, so I'll be no help in their investigation anyway, none at all. I hope I get arrested for that, I can use the money.

Again, if her being injured was really a concern, pushing her over her bike, against a wall, to the ground, then carrying her like they did is the worst possible thing they could do...so I think the 'for her safety' thing is pure bullshit.

Cop Pepper Spraying Teenage Girl

newtboy says...

I do. If they told her to sit, and she sat, problems solved.
She continuously said "don't touch me". They didn't need to if they told her to sit instead of letting her get on her bike and ride it. She clearly had an issue with being touched, they could have recognized that and used it, instead they exacerbated things.
You are expecting an irrational girl to act rationally. Impossible. That doesn't make her right.

You are also focusing on the part that, while more harsh than necessary imo, was understandable and you're intentionally ignoring the part most people find outrageous, macing her when she posed zero threat. Defend that.

If I'm not under arrest, I'm leaving. I don't talk to cops, so I'll be no help in their investigation anyway, none at all. I hope I get arrested for that, I can use the money.

Again, if her being injured was really a concern, pushing her over her bike, against a wall, to the ground, then carrying her like they did is the worst possible thing they could do...so I think the 'for her safety' thing is pure bullshit.

greatgooglymoogly said:

If you really think this would have been prevented by one simple command from the officer, you are clearly not looking at this objectively. The other officer is talking to her on the bike when the camera-wearer walks up, and she just walks away from the conversation. She had no interest in talking to them and a simple request wasn't going to change that.
"Also, detained is not under arrest. You are under zero obligation to submit to detention."
Wrong. Investigatory detention is a thing, and not always voluntary. When they announced they were detaining her she should have let them cuff her without resisting.

https://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/how-long-can-police-detain-you/

The other person trying to help her who is later warned to back off even tells her "don't make it worse than it is". As the girl began to overreact more and more the cops could have tried to get this man to calm her down and explain how things work and that it was in her best interests to cooperate.

I think the reason they were so insistent on getting her parents down there instead of just her identification was that they are legally required to release a minor to the parents' custody if an injury is possible. They are responsible for her health after detaining her, and if she had a broken vertebrae or something not obviously visible from the crash and they just let her walk away, then they definitely would get sued if there was a later complication. An adult can refuse medical care, a child cannot. Blame the lawyers, not the cops here.

With so many better examples of terrible policing easily found, it's odd that this one is so popular.

Cop Pepper Spraying Teenage Girl

newtboy says...

In America, you have every right to ignore them unless they give a lawful command, which you must obey. They cannot arrest you for silence, or for ignoring a request. I'll take my brother's expensive lawyer's advice over anyone's, and he said the only answer allowed is "ask my lawyer", and to do what they command, but not what they ask.

The girl wasn't aggressively pushing to me, but she also wasn't complying with a lawful command. If the audio is any indication, she was trying to get her phone out of her pocket while lying down handcuffed. She should have complied, but they also should have put her all the way in like they're trained to do, not 3/4 of the way. It's easy and safe to open the other door and pull her another foot into the car where she can't block anything, and that doesn't result in a lawsuit and more public distrust, but that wouldn't teach her a lesson. Pepper spray is not as safe as that by far.

It's not cool to hate cops, and I really wish they would stop getting caught doing things that foster hatred. I want them to act in a way the public can always support, not the least patient and most aggressive they can legally justify in every situation. It would be good if they could be thinking 'how would I feel if someone did this to my daughter/son under the same conditions.
I doubt any of them would be ok with that happening to their child, tantrum or no. They could have been worse here, but also could have defused it all with a single simple command to sit at the beginning. Don't expect an irrational, young, scared girl to act like an adult...that's beyond the capabilities of most adults.

You can humbly submit to authority if you wish. My forefathers fought and died to secure my rights to not answer questions or submit to the every whim of authority, I'll not disrespect their sacrifices by waiving those hard won rights for authority's, or my own convenience.

It would be nice if 15 year old girls were civil, but few I've known are when cornered. I think that's the real reason for the spraying, but not an excuse imo. To me, the cop's pride needs to give way to reason and logic, or we'll keep paying out multi million dollar judgements.

Jerykk said:

Now this is good footage. You see and hear what the cop sees and hears and you actually have context before the incident. This why all cops should wear body cams and why body cam footage should be released to the public.

The cop was entirely justified here. The suspect tried to flee the scene, refused to cooperate or comply with commands and physically resisted arrest. When the suspect repeatedly tried to keep the car door open with her legs, the cops made the correct choice in pepper-spraying her. It's very hard to close a door when someone is aggressively pushing it open. Brute force might have worked but that would have been dangerous and potentially lead to accidental injury. Pepper spray was the safest option.

And newtboy, ignoring the police is not "totally fine." In fact, it's one of the dumbest and most dangerous things you can do. Police are authority figures with the right to detain or arrest you. As such, the best way to deal with police is to listen and cooperate in a civil manner. If the girl had done that, she wouldn't have been cuffed, carried off to the police car or pepper-sprayed. I know it's cool to hate cops (and authority figures in general) but at a certain point, pride needs to give way to reason and logic.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists