I think you've got the wrong end of the stick at some points, so let me just clear that up first:

"Woah, woah, woah! There's a pretty big difference between saying it's not ok to assault someone and expressing support for them."
-- I referred to the modern nazi who supports them, not you for thinking it is wrong to punch. You are not a nazi supporter because of your stance. A nazi of course supports hitler, etc.

So hopefully this clears up:
"The law has nothing to do with it. It is unethical to assault someone simply for stating their beliefs."
-- My point was that they are stating their support for genocide and harming other people. It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. They aren't shy about their template for society, they fly the swastika flag clearly and sieg heil and whatnot.

"Here we are, 70 years after the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.... and yet we still have Nazis."
-- This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on. Otherwise you must accept that violence was the most successful solution, and you are equivocating over semantics with this point. In as far as any ideology (which only really latches itself on generic human mindsets like xenophobia, and is therefore inalienable, a form of nazism will occur by some other name in any social group*) may be "defeated", it was defeated.

I accept that you think it is unethical to punch them. I'm not saying i want chaos in the streets where mobs go around tearing suspected nazis to bits; that's why i'm not asking for a law change and why i won't be opening with violence towards nazis. I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok.

* - just expanding on this. It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies; that's why so many diverse ones formed and still do. And as you originally said defeatable, if it isn't defeatable (because it's inalienable) then you're saying your own point is wrong.

TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me

"Yet it is how they were ultimately defeated."

Really? Here we are, 70 years after the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.... and yet we still have Nazis (hell, there's practically one in the white house). So no, they weren't ultimately defeated.

"When you express your support for nazis, you're not just saying you have an alternative viewpoint"

Woah, woah, woah! There's a pretty big difference between saying it's not ok to assault someone and expressing support for them. No-one here supports Nazis, but they do have a right to speak, even if what they have to say is abhorrent.

Of course, they don't have a right to be listened to, and we have the right to tell them to go fuck themselves.

"I can justify breaking the law to punch a nazi in the same way i can justify breaking the law to protest a fascist government. "

The law has nothing to do with it. It is unethical to assault someone simply for stating their beliefs.

I will grant you that if the Nazis ever get into power, an armed resistance would be moral. But there is a world of difference between expressing a thought (no matter how vile) and committing an action.

Yet it is how they were ultimately defeated.

I don't mind swimming against the stream on this one; i think it's fine to punch nazis.

When you express your support for nazis, you're not just saying you have an alternative viewpoint. You are saying that you support the ideals of the old nazi party, you support Hitler & his goals, you want to see people exterminated in a genocidal system and you celebrate that such a system existed. You are actively pursuing a course of action that, if successful, will result in the deaths of millions of people. Your goal is to kill people.

I don't think there's any comparison to the same kind of treatment of the Phelps family. They celebrate death, misery and hate, but they never killed millions of Jews and other 'undesirables.' They are unconscionable bastards, but that's it. Your end goal in supporting them is not violence & genocide.

I can justify breaking the law to punch a nazi in the same way i can justify breaking the law to protest a fascist government. Laws aren't divine or sacrosanct, and they certainly aren't constant. Our oligarchs meddle with them on a daily basis. The right thing to do may not always be the legal thing to do, and you should not rely on your government to decide right and wrong for you (that's what nazi germany thrived on - 'i was only obeying orders'). The "law" argument will never convince me.

But i might be convinced for other reasons.

This. You cannot assault people for speaking their mind, no matter how odious their opinion might be (with huge grey areas around actual incitement to violence and so on).

The second they start something violent though, you have a right to defend yourself and others, and there's no law that says you can't feel immensely satisfied while doing so.

But as much as I viscerally want to see Nazis punched in the face (Indy FTW!), it's not how you ultimately defeat them.

Short term, yeah, you have to defend yourself and stop them from achieving their goals... by any means necessary.

Long term, you have to prove them wrong, and the way to do that is with compassion (like the "Life after hate" guys, or this brilliant story *related=https://videosift.com/video/How-one-black-man-defeated-the-KKK-with-humor-and-grace).

*quality discussion though.

How one black man defeated the KKK with humor and grace has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by ChaosEngine.

Ahem, Wanda Maximoff aka Scarlet Witch. Just as an example, although not seen (yet) in the MCU, both Dr. Strange and Charles Xavier together could not totally defeat her.

Quicksilver could probably take him down as well, but he is no longer available in the Avengers movie canon.

While not shown in the MCU, and therefore up to speculation, Thor's hammer can actually absorb Magneto's magnetic manipulation and cannot be controlled by Magneto. There is an alternate universe comic that shows Thor with multiple versions of the hammer, but only one is the actual Mjolnir. At one point, Magneto captures one of the non-Mjolnir hammers because it has a base of Iron instead of Uru (the metal used to forge Mjolnir).

So, pretty funny, but far from accurate. Obviously, Hulk doesn't seem to care who he smashes (if they are heroes or villains), so I don't think he would back down either.

Same guy.

Guy also mentions the Keene Police force... The Free Keene Squad was him... yeah.

https://youtu.be/-vQ5h8iWa0Q

But everybody finding this funny, or revelling in the karma isn't watching the same video I am. If you've watched him in the Vice segment, this video is one of the most disturbing things you can watch. These aren't the tears of a defeated man. This looks to me like the a guy overcome with emotion, not just sadness or fear. I can easily imagine this same gut wrenched display as an apology to the guy(s) he just shot at a future protest and distraught at how he was forced to do it and doesn't like it but will do it again if he has to.

NOBODY is saying anybody is heroes. I haven't read or saw any reports saying they were heroes, save for Fox who says that the media was. Just that people were counter protesting those sort of people the whole word fought a war to defeat.

What is happening is that Trump refuses to say just how fucking evil Nazis and the KKK are. He wouldn't do this if it was a Muslim who ran people over, nor would you. He, Fox, and all those on the right would all be saying how it proves how evil Islam is. By that standard, the fact they don't see how evil Nazis are, proves how evil Christianity is, if God won't convict you that Nazis are one of the greatest evils that ever existed... that anyone who isn't a fucking Nazi themselves, wouldn't call out the absolute shit that is a Nazi or KKK is, is reprehensible. I'm sure most Christians would take offense to such a statement, for such blanket blame of a few bad Nazis proving how evil Christianity is, but don't think twice blaming a terrorist act by a Muslim on the religion itself.

We got Republicans trying to push through laws that protect drivers who hurt or kill people who are peacefully protesting. As if the first amendment doesn't matter. Now, to be fair, most of those probably wouldn't protect the asshole who killed that lady down there, as he clearly had intent to hurt and kill.

Let's repeat the main point, there are no mainstream media saying any group is a hero. People may have called out the one lady as heroic, though it wouldn't have been if it wasn't for a White Supremacist asshole who killed her because she was protesting against White Supremacist like him. But NOBODY in the mainstream media is saying any groups are heroes. All we have is Fox saying as such, and trying to give fucking Nazis a pass for not being some of the most evil people ever. There's no fucking blame on both sides. The fact that we have such a blatantly racist President, with a White Supremacist in Bannon, has emboldened such hate groups, they are gloating how he wouldn't put them down, and then how he rolled back what he said Monday. They love that he's so clearly on their side of pure hate.

He wouldn't have waited days to condemn the violence if it was Muslims at the center. He'd have said something right away, talking about the dangers of radical Islam. He wouldn't have waited to get the facts, as he's proven time and time again. Nor would have the far right media machine like Fox.

Fuck anyone who would stand with the Nazis and the KKK. Fuck anyone who'd defend their hate.

The fact that the Republicans who could do anything about this asshole only have harsh words and won't start a hearing on conduct unbecoming a President, the fact that he's made us the laughing stock of the world, just shows how low the party and its supporters have gone.

@bobknight33 @newtboy

Leaving out key information, to the point that what's being said could be easily misunderstood, is a form of dishonesty.

But, Bob, I know we don't talk much, that's mostly because I don't like you. This kind of thing is exactly why I feel this way though.

Let's break down the first few of this commercial...errr propaganda piece.

"Despite our political differences, Russia and the United States have maintained friendly relations since the foundation of our great nation."
--------
Depends heavily on your definition of "friendly." If by friendly, you mean "almost nuking each other over long stretches of time," yeah sure, we're friendly.
------------------

"In fact, Russia and America have worked together, throughout history, to defeat our common enemies."
-------
Ehhh... we sort of worked independently against the same people out of individualized interests, not because we like each other. The video cites Russia "ignoring British requests for naval support during the American Revolutionary War;" except Catherine II basically manipulated the colonists into turning their backs on Britain to suit her own purposes and weakening the countries by splitting them in two.

This video cites the Ghent Treaty, but that was only struck after Napolean had already taken Moscow and an emboldened Russia started the land grab that led to the Crimean War. While getting their commie shits kicked in and losing the land they tried to take and then some, they were worried about not being compensated for American Russia, aka Alaska. So a few years after that, they sold it to the US for a cool $7 mill. (cold joke, get it?)

In short, even if we did get along with each other, it was just barely. Regardless, that was a different country that just happens to be occupying the same land now.

---------

But, you know, nevermind all that. Because that's not what you wanted to debate, was it? (see quote)

So I'll say this: Yesterday, Donald Trump got into a twitter war with the mayor of London, whose city just suffered a terror attack. That's the level of critique and disregard for decorum he has while doing it.

He'll cofefe the shit out of the pope and spit in NATO's face.

AND YETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Nothing but positivity for Russia.

Last I remember, you were a fairly large promoter of Hillary's email dumps. Yeah, one of us is drinkin the bad kool-aid alright.

Let's end the suspense. Why not use something less-abstract to rest your laurels on? Hmmm...if only there were something...like...hmmm...something more...hmmm... concrete......hmmmm not like transparent like a fence...fence=fake news (see first presidential address)...hmm if only there were some kind of symbol for just how big of a fucking liar this asshole is....hmmmm ghad why can't i think of this...URGh! I feel like I'm banging my head against....hmmm.

Ah well.

p.s. Right here buddy: http://bit.ly/2rNSNsw

That makes sense....only if you don't understand carpool lanes.
They are designed for that lane to safely move much faster than traffic...that's why they exist at all. They have zones where you may enter or leave, nowhere else for exactly this reason. If you would counter that it's only safe if people follow the rules of the road, I'll counter that that is always the case on any road at any speed.

Some places have 80 mph limits...but they don't have carpool lanes there. Even at 65, slower than normal unimpeded traffic, he would have wrecked imo. Slowing down to the speed of non-carpool lane traffic defeats the purpose of the special, separate lane and is actually blocking traffic.

I make no assertion about any other video he posted, only this one situation. His being an asshole or not has no bearing this time.

I guess the hint for these is the rotational test that they show at the first.

1) A sticky object that would let go like a wall crawler that climbs down a wall would create this effect. (see below)
2) You can't. As you approach infinite speed it would get very close. (see below)
3) The bike will move forward. (see below)
4) The outside parts of the wheels that overlap the rail. Also if the train has a flywheel that is larger than the wheel size the bottom of the flywheel would also always move backwards faster than the train was moving.

1) He says "what object is inside?" so I'm not sure a liquid would count. Also a viscous liquid would flow a slow rate and would probably not stop and start. You might be able to get a viscous liquid to stop and start if you had fins, but that still might just move slowly or gain enough momentum to roll fast without any flow.

2) A little excel calculation shows that the average velocity approaches twice the initial but will never hit it.

attempted m/s - total time - average m/s
1 100 1
2 50 1.333333333
3 33.33333333 1.5
...
200 0.5 1.990049751
201 0.497512438 1.99009901

3) I'm not sure if the parameters of this experiment are explained sufficiently.

If it is allowed to slip then no matter the mechanical advantage a hard pull should always be able to get the bike to skid back and defeat friction.

If the bike is not allowed to slip on the ground then I don't understand how it could ever move backwards, the only options would be that it doesn't move at all or it moves forward.

If it can't slip then the ratio of the pedal to the wheel is what is in question. Bikes only have gear ratios higher than 1 and the crank is smaller than the tire so the tire will always rotate more than the crank thus the bike should move forward.

Sorry, did not mean to offend. I'll concede defeat. My apologies.

If this vid is an indication then instant deployment makes it very difficult to defeat i would guess. Also probably used in different places then compounds in dangerous areas where you often see cement block barriers. https://youtu.be/AcG4i29frXI

It would be neat to see what they are anchored to. Also, being suspended 3 feet off the ground makes it much easier to defeat than big heavy concrete blocks.

When I was an agnostic I was resigned to die a meaningless death. That is all the hope this view of the world offers; one day you will die and it won't matter. You will be gone and after a certain amount of time no one will even remember you were here.

Thank God for Jesus Christ, who died for our sins and rose from the dead on the third day. Death is a punishment for sin, it is not something we need to accept as the natural order of things. Jesus Christ defeated death and by repenting of our sins and putting our faith and trust in Him as Lord and Savior, we can be forgiven of our sins and have everlasting life.

Death is not the end and we will all one day stand in front of God and account for our lives. Your choice is to either pay for your own sins or to let Jesus pay for them for you. Both choices are eternally significant.