I think I could just paste my comment on half of the discusions around here. I think I will.

Here in Portland Oregon, A kid with a AR-15 walked into Clackamas Mall on Dec 11 to kill as many people as he could. He shot 3 people and his gun jammed, while he was fixing his jam, a citizen with a conealed carry permt drew his weopon and confronted the shooter, The shooter fled down a stairwell and shot himself. The mall was a gun free zone (the guy with the CCW was breaking the rules) and filled with thousands of holiday shoppers. The rampage was ended because one person could defend himself from the cowardly nutjob. You will not see the real story in the mainstream media.

Here in Portland Oregon, A kid with a AR-15 walked into Clackamas Mall on Dec 11 to kill as many people as he could. He shot 3 people and his gun jammed, while he was fixing his jam, a citizen with a conealed carry permt drew his weopon and confronted the shooter, The shooter fled down a stairwell and shot himself. The mall was a gun free zone (the guy with the CCW was breaking the rules) and filled with thousands of holiday shoppers. The rampage was ended because one person could defend himself from the cowardly nutjob. You will not see the real story in the mainstream media.

Ok, I'll start with a few things that most people would probably agree with, but the police force currently would fight like hell to avoid. How about we decide to actually punish cops who break existing rules and laws. Use testing to weed out unbalanced power hungry or corrupt types from becoming cops. QUIT hiring COMBAT veterans to become PEACE officers. I'm sure there are many things that could be done to fix the problem with the police, its just that it's not being done because the police think the only problem is that we, the lowly people, dont always follow ALL commands,and sometimes we need to be put in our place. >> ^shveddy:
False dichotomy, among other things. There are innumerable intermediate steps between "allowing them to do whatever they want to you" and "shooting the motherfuckers." I'll admit that there is a point where armed resistance is warranted, but if you think that we have arrived anywhere near that point with enough frequency to warrant armed resistance, then you are crazy.
Yes, there are plenty of instances of people's rights being violated - but in 99.99% of those occasions, I think the problem can best be solved through other means.
Do I think that the students who got peppersprayed at UC Davis had their rights violated?
Yes, I do. But this guy seems to suggest that the proper response is for the students to pull guns and start a shoot-out. Let's imagine what that would look like for a second:
One of the students peers through the caustic mist with righteous fury and a wet t-shirt over his mouth. He can feel the comforting weight of his Barretta, held close to his heart in a chest holster, and he knows that this is the moment to act. He stands up tall despite the onslaught of bright orange asphyxiation, reaches for his piece and takes aim. Somewhat startled, the officer is suddenly defenseless with his canister and it is not long before he crumples to the ground in an ever expanding pool of blood. He basks in a brief moment of clarity before chaos reigns. His fellow students are quick to bear arms themselves, but the training, body armor and poise of the officers allows them a significant head start and the students suffer heavy casualties in this initial volley.
Not to be deterred by the deaths of their friends, the occupy movement takes up refuge in the life sciences building which, designed in the late sixties with a brutalist aesthetic, is mostly concrete and as such is a perfect fortress from which to outlast the ensuing siege and inspire innumerable citizens on the outside world to take up arms as well. Guerrilla warfare is the only tactic effective in such asymmetrical circumstances, and after a few weeks of violence the powers that be succumb to international pressure and agree to negotiate with the 99%...
...or we could launch an official investigation, fire the guy as a scapegoat after an admittedly long, expensive and cumbersome process, and let the public outrage that ensued lead to a more cautious approach to future student protests. Bloggers and editorialists collectively write millions of words on the subject, increasing awareness and generally shaming the agency that allowed it to happen.
Not perfect, but a whole hell of a lot more civilized.
Any time you use guns against a government entity in he US, you will eventually be caught and put in jail. Period. The only way to avoid this is to be a small part of a large popular movement that eventually overthrows the US government, and I don't see that ever happening with citizen gun-owners unless it involves guerrilla tactics. Imagine gunfights erupting at your local municipal buildings. Imagine pipe bombs at your local police station. People need to realize that this is what they are advocating when they argue for second amendment rights as a fourth check and balance.
If you disagree with that statement, feel free to fill in a reasonable sequence of events to span the gap between "guy whose fourth amendment rights are violated guns down cop" and "said guy is vindicated, and massive changes are made to our law enforcement policies." I suspect that we are far more likely to see a greater militarization of the police in response.
I humbly propose that we join the civilized world and come up with more creative ways to correct our problems.

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve to be completely dependent on Him for everything. They relied upon God to make their decisions for them, and tell them what good and evil was. However, because He wanted His creatures to be free to love Him, ie just not just forced to obey Him, He gave them one command. That command was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He told them that in the day they ate of it they would surely die.

What lay in the fruit of that tree for Adam and Eve was their own autonomy. The fruit represented an independence from God to decide on their own what is good and evil. Rather than sitting at Gods feet and learning from Him, they would become a law onto themselves through their own judgment. What eating this fruit did was destroy their innocence forever. It ruined the perfect relationship and fellowship they had with God by turning them into rebels who would make choices apart from God.

So, rather than the law being given for the reasons you are saying, it was given to offer them a choice between obedience to God and personal autonomy. The consequences of breaking that law not only changed their nature but brought sin and death into the world. God draws the line at His standard for goodness, which is perfection. It is a zero tolerance policy for rebellion, not only for moral guidance, but to maintain order in His kingdom.

What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

God created not out of need, but out of the abundance of His love. He regards us as His offspring, not His pets.

Act 17:22-31

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

No, because He laid all of our sin on His Son, who bore the punishment we deserve. It is not a compromise of His integrity so long as the sin has been paid for.

Romans 4:25

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification

You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Before the world began, God knew that He would need to send His Son.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:

http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Because being in the image of God isn't about what God looks like, it is about being imbued with His personal attributes. We resemble Him in our better nature, not our appearance.

What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

I understand what you're saying. You're not going to see the picture before you connect all of the dots. I'll keep supplying you the dots as I am able. I think I explained this particular question to you in more specific detail this time around, as to why the separation occurred.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

He knew before He created that His creation would rebel at some point, and He took the necessary steps to reconcile it back to Himself at the end of time. He didn't screw up, but He did create beings capable of screwing up. To allow for the real possibility of good, He also had to allow for the real possibility of evil.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

Or it's absolutely true.

The only consistent model is that God himself created sin and evil by creating the laws, because if he hadn't created the laws, there would be no sin or evil in the world. This understanding is consistent with your statement A and in spirit with C, if you understand C to mean, "We created evil by breaking his law".

Sorry, I should have clarified this a lot more. When scripture says "the law" what it is reffering to is the Mosaic law that was given at Mt Sinai. This law was given because of sin, and sin was already in the world at that time. This really goes back to the beginning with what I described earlier. What we had in the beginning was not a law, but simply a choice. It was given not to keep us from evil but to give us freedom to choose to obey Gods will. You can't freely obey someone if you don't have a choice not to do it. You can't love someone without the choice not to love. The law came into play after all of this, and that is a whole other discussion.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

@shinyblurry

If you ask why God gave us the concept of right and wrong, could it be that He knew which behaviors were good for us and which were bad? If you ask why God gave us consequences, could it be that God wanted to discourage us from bad behavior?

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

He gave them an honest choice and it was their choice that created sin. What God allowed is the condition to exist where sin was possible.

He created us and our conditions such that 100% of us (or 100% minus two, I suppose) would break those rules. It’s in our nature to break God’s rules. God made both our nature and his rules. God’s fault.

Why did God allow us to sin? Because if He didn't, we would be nothing more than robots.

What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

He must punish all sin...God cannot compromise His integrity to forgive us…

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

[me:]Why? Surely God decided that a sinless person would be required to act as a bridge? Why didn't God just make us closer to begin with? Or why didn't he just come on over himself? Couldn't he? Why did he determine that to disobey his commands would create distance?

[you:]God sent His Son over on His behalf, remember? Fellowship with God is a privilege, and to the extent that we abuse it, that is the extent to which He will remove Himself from it.

You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:
http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Why why why why why why? First, read some of the things I've said and connect the dots.

Because because because because because because your dots don’t connect. When I ask about a connection between two dots, you cite another totally new dot from scripture. When I ask about how to connect that dot, you assert another one with a rhetorical question. When I ask about that dot, you get frustrated and tell me to go study theology. Except within the same comment before you’ve had a chance to answer, I don’t believe I’m asking you the same question again and again. I’m asking you to justify the new information you’re giving me. If it’s frustrating for you, imagine how hard it is for me to accept it.

[me:]And why did they become corrupt? That must have been one of God's rules, that when you sin the first time, you corrupt your DNA (or whatever) for all generations to follow. He created that consequence as much as he created the physical rules of the universe. Why?

[you:]They lost their innocence when they disobeyed God and ate of the fruit. Their nature fundamentally changed as a consequence. Also, death came into the world. The human experience went from paradise to paradise lost, and humans had to fend for themselves. The corruption was a confluence of all of these different factors.

You missed the question. What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

@shinyblurry

...a loving God would do everything possible, including invoking extremely harsh punishments, to prevent as much sin as possible and protect His creation from the greatest amount of harm.

God: "I made random rules, I decided on the most severe punishment possible for breaking any of these rules, and I designed you to be imperfect such that you would all break some rules, requiring me to punish you. Now I'm going to kill some of you so the rest of you'll stop doing bad things (even though you can't stop) so that I don't have to kill you too, following my own rules."

That's some crazy talk.

@shinyblurry:

Why does God keep making death-punishable rules against things that don't actually harm people? It's bad because it's disobedience, right? So if God didn't arbitrarily say, "don't do this thing," it wouldn't be bad? And he knows people will break the rules.

Why does God want to kill people?

MY ex girlfriend was deported. I still love her but it doesn't matter. As a 24 year old college student she was somehow a threat to national security and they put her into jail. I had to pay $10,000 (my entire savings at the time) to get her out and there was nothing we could do to stop it.

Trust me when I say the only way to stay in this country is to game the system. The honest people all get kicked out. I know a few people who have been able to stay and the shady (borderline illegal) things they had to do was mind boggling.
In other words only those willing to break the rules are allowed to stay. Anyone with a decent set of morals gets stepped on.

More I think about this the more it bugs me. I can't help but think that someone at that school doesn't like this girl for whatever reason. I had perfect attendance my senior year, made me feel like an asshole for being a chump and showing up that much. But I say that to qualify that I KNOW a girl there who got 4 year perfect attendance wasn't there a good portion of the senior year and she still got the award because she was involved in sports/programs and her parents knew people at the school and argued for her to get missed days expunged for various reasons. Like showing up for 15 minutes then going home sick counted as a day for her, but not for someone else for instance...because it would allow her to compete that night in track.

High school prepares you for life, but not in the "education" way. More in the "you can break the rules if you're in this group" and "you can't break the rules if you're in this group" and "we'll make more rules for you, if you're in this group" kind of way. No matter how they coat it, education is not the core of schools focus anymore.

Thanks for the feedback! I killed it as soon as I realized, sorry!

haha the other profile is not me, but it is a friend that I asked to join and to upload it in the hopes of promoting it. (Is that allowed?)

If not, I guess I can ask other users? I'm new here..

Don't want to break the rules, just wanna promote the vid...

Sorry for the trouble!

I may have picked this up wrong but I think HIS company was only dealing with the money side of things. So, though he was working with the people breaking the rules he wasn't the one breaking them. That said, due diligence would have discovered that THEY were breaking the rules. BUT if I were him I would have been cool with that cos, you know, Nietzsche et al. (joke). So if this was the case an he didn't have a moral objection then I agree that his mistake was the personally owning the account and not the participation in the first place.

And you should ALWAYS start sentences with conjunctions and CAPS LOCK something.>> ^MilkmanDan:

He talks as though his key mistake was personal ownership of the paypal account, but I think that really just focused the fallout on him rather than across multiple business entities. His key mistake was breaking the TOS/EULAs of the accounts that he was (re)selling, and rolling the dice that Blizzard would never catch on.
They did catch on. Personally, I think it is very difficult to prevent this sort of thing and that your best bet is to either just live with it, or change in-game things to make the motivation for it less enticing. Star Wars Galaxies had accounts for early jedi unlockers (being able to play as a jedi was originally a very rare thing) sell for multiple thousands of dollars also. Since jedi as a class was so attractive and so rare, you'd have to expect that such account sales would happen -- that is just bad design, assuming that you want to prevent such activities.
Still, it is hard to fault him too much since this was relatively uncharted territory. And, it makes for quite an interesting story!

@robbersdog49
This will forever be a discussion between people who work with colours.
In the print industry, the photographic industry or the artists of the world.

The truth is it's different for what ever your process is.
RGB for Light
CMYK for Print
& RYB for artists
I work in all three industries and need to switch my brain back and forth between them constantly.

What they are showing here at the most primary level is the RYB colour wheel that kids learn first. It's basic paints and crayons. These are the base pigments used in paints; Cadmium Yellow & Red, Phthalocyanine (Phthalo) Blue or Cobalt Blue. The closest paint colour to magenta would be a Quinacridone.
The primary colours are the ones all others are made from. These are the ones you can't make by adding something else. We use the chemicals that are the absolute most pure to create these pigmants. They are the highest level of purity and intensity a colour can be. Once you start mixing them, the intensity can only be reduced.
Of course these would be balanced using a titanium white, Iron Oxide Black (plus Umber & Sienna).

As we get older, science class points out that light works differently and is a process that works in subtractive colour. Light being white and the other colours being made by adding filters to block various parts of the spectrum.A blue surface isn't so much blue as it just holds on to all wavelengths of the spectrum but reflects the part of the spectrum that is blue. (Etc.)

In indusry, (and most people still don't under stand this process), the printing process uses Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Key (Black) (in a transparent or dot)layered fashion to simulate a full colour image.

And don't forget Hexachrome (CMYKOG) which also ads the Orange and Green coloured inks (because simple CMYK cannot simulate every colour).

The CMYK colour system is a simulation of colour and are NOT primary colours. Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black are the primary colours within that system only.

ROY G BIV
R Y B are more accurately the Primary Colours in the light and colour spectrum. The coulours between them OG(I)V are all Secondary colours.

*Sidenote: Magenta is an odd coulour which comes from that one man out theory. Indigo is the invisible colour in the spectrum that breaks the rule. That's why in order to create a Cyan colour in paint, we use a Quinacridone pigment. Quinacridone is a transparent colour only and can't be made opaque without mixing it with another pigment and loosing it's purity. It's a damm expensive pigment so it's rarely used.

>> ^robbersdog49:

Primary colours of light are Red Green and Blue.
Primary colours of pigment are Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black.
I'm a geeky printer so this bugs the hell out of me. Blue is a mix of Cyan and Magenta, so it's not primary. It's a mix. Red is a mix of Magenta and Yellow.
Maybe they just weren't clever enough to find rhymes for Magenta or Cyan. It's just a shame they had to be wrong.

10 percent of the worlds population are psychopaths? Have any evidence for this claim? In any case, you're wrong. Even psychopaths know good from evil:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Lack_of_empathy

"Psychopaths have a total lack of remorse for the abuses they commit. They generally know the difference between right and wrong, but they do not care. Even when they are aware of the consequences of their actions, they frequently rationalize their behavior so as to minimize the seriousness or shrug off responsibility. They often blame their victims for their own crimes; "he shouldn't have provoked me" and "suckers deserve to be swindled" are common sayings."

Everyone is born with their special challenges. Psychopaths struggle with adhering to moral standards, but this isn't because they aren't aware that they exist. They know what they're doing is wrong but they do it anyway. A person can become like this for a lot of reasons. We live in a fallen world and this manifests in genetic defects, mental defects, and yes, even defects in following our conscience. I have the opinion that many of these defects are self-created. In any case, God can still present those so afflicted with real choices, and the opportunity to receive salvation.

>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
Subjective perception of moral values by humans is the basis of your ontological argument here, which rests on the premise that everyone can subjectively perceive moral values. We've just learned that not everyone can do so: an estimated 700,000,000 people around the world cannot perceive moral values subjectively. Do you still maintain that we can all directly perceive moral values?
A related theological argument goes that God made moral values and then gave us free will to choose to follow them or not "because robots would be undesirable", according to you in that same dialogue. "Unfortunately", we break those rules all the time. Now, he can put any barrier in our way, and make life as difficult as possible, and this will be a test of our desire to follow our God-given conscience. But he didn't give everyone a conscience. It's nothing like depriving someone of one sense. It's like depriving someone of all senses so they can't understand what is expected of us morally, nor even that anything is expected. It's like expecting a robot to know right from wrong without telling it that these two categories even exist. What's the point of having free will if you don't have a conscience? Did God want some people not to perceive him, and to wander around being the worst people on the planet to everyone else? Was this "desirable?"

@shinyblurry

Subjective perception of moral values by humans is the basis of your ontological argument here, which rests on the premise that everyone can subjectively perceive moral values. We've just learned that not everyone can do so: an estimated 700,000,000 people around the world cannot perceive moral values subjectively. Do you still maintain that we can all directly perceive moral values?

A related theological argument goes that God made moral values and then gave us free will to choose to follow them or not "because robots would be undesirable", according to you in that same dialogue. "Unfortunately", we break those rules all the time. Now, he can put any barrier in our way, and make life as difficult as possible, and this will be a test of our desire to follow our God-given conscience. But he didn't give everyone a conscience. It's nothing like depriving someone of one sense. It's like depriving someone of all senses so they can't understand what is expected of us morally, nor even that anything is expected. It's like expecting a robot to know right from wrong without telling it that these two categories even exist. What's the point of having free will if you don't have a conscience? Did God want some people not to perceive him, and to wander around being the worst people on the planet to everyone else? Was this "desirable?"

Sorry we didn't know we couldn't post our own videos. We didn't wan to break the rules/ Sorry we won't post our here anymore