I'm just going to go through this point for point.

There is no gulf between the result, there is no gulf for the family of the victim. It doesn't matter if he's dead, there is no going back from that.

Argument from consequences. As sad as the result is, that isn't on the police.

If you have ever been choked you would know that you can't help yourself but resist. Your body spasm, it's trying to get air and you'll do everything you can to survive. What this tactic does is insure that a person will fight back so you can keep harming that person.

That is simply untrue, and I can tell you that from experience (10 years of martial arts and been in a few fights in my time). If you're getting choked, you stop resisting, because you've already lost and you're just making it worse.

The police are absolutely in the wrong, this man is not a danger to anyone, even himself. They either talk him down, or use non lethal means to bring him under control. If they can't do that they leave him be, and if they need to follow him until they get backup. There is no reason to immediately attack him, it just makes this worse.

Again, we have no idea why the police are arresting this guy, because the video doesn't provide any context.

So no it is not unreasonable to call it murder at all. It is by definition a Murder because it is the Unlawful Killing of a Human Being.

Two problems with that:
1: Unlawful. It wasn't unlawful, they were arresting him which they have a legal right to do.
2: You're deliberately leaving out a crucial part of the definition: with malice aforethought. Again, are you saying the cops deliberatly set out to kill him?

They may have the legal right under this Nations laws to murder people with impunity but the laws are wrong.

The use of deadly force by police is governed by laws, and any use of said force results in an investigation. In fact, deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." ( Tennessee v. Garner)

I completely agree that there have been cases of unjustified killing by police where they have escaped sanction (Diallo is the one that springs to mind), but to say that they can "murder people with impunity" is hyperbole and nonsense.

What you are doing is defending them using their Laws. Why would anyone ever accept that? If I could make the laws for myself I would and then I would never be guilty.

Because it's not "their laws". The police enforce the law, they don't make it. The laws are made by elected representatives.

There are huge problems with the justice system in the US (see john Olivers video on prisons for a start) and part of that is the police, but what you're doing is not helping.

It's akin to arguing that we should take action on climate change (a very real problem), because if we don't fairies will go extinct.

Yeah, yeah, and I joke around with yogi as well. My jab at your manner is lost to you. On the contrary, don't need a clue, as your modus operendi is apparent from your response to an observation, vis-a-vis my calling you out here.

You accuse people of being confrontational? Check that mirror again, perhaps.
You're welcome to maintain and foster any opinion you wish.

Nothing here? Obviously am or your blood-pressure wouldn't have spiked like it did during what appears to be a rather sophomoric and infantile reply.

Admittedly, I am guilty of the same when cornered by haters....working on that.

Whether the comment in question was or wasn't directed at me is mute point. The fact that you've been directing foul energy in my direction on this site lately with a view to destroying my character and integrity is evident to all.

Not nit-picking sir, s..t-kicking....and trying to get it out of my way in order to walk unhindered by kak on my boots.

I'd be more than happy to talk to you in private or in real-time with a view to a mutual understanding because I'd rather not play this back-and fourth. Please...Name the venue of your choosing for a discussion.

research shows, though, that if you repeat the same words over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, that you will remember those words....and the original meaning of those words will be lost, leaving you instead with a tremendous amount of rage.

You are right. They have taken it to a very extreme level. However, I can see their rationale to it. It's essentially a domino effect in that if the first person hadn't leaked it, then the 100k others wouldn't have gotten ahold of it. Does that make each one worth $450k . . . no.

I wouldn't mind seeing massive piraters sued for the monetary value of everything in their playlist (i.e., if it's a buck off iTunes, and they have 100k sounds, then they stole 100k.)

To say that every pirated piece is a lost sale, you are correct to say no. However, it still makes it a theft. While I technically didn't lose money . . . you still stole it. That's why I believe in ad revenue such as iTunes Radio, Pandora, I heart Radio etc. So I get doubly pissed when content providers make a song free via advertising, and then people bitch about that. lol Like, Hulu.

People normally pay $100/mo to watch 14 minutes of commercials per hour, but complain when they pay nothing to watch only 3 minutes worth.

I was all for ad revenue, except, my brother and I sold graphics. Not exactly something we could put ads on. We actually had people who'd buy it from us, and then throw it up on their site for a fraction of the price….

In that regard, if someone is profiting off my work, then the fabled revenue lost is 100% tangible. So for Megaupload et al who made real money (not just legit P2P sharing) I'm all for sticking them with the maximum fine possible. If I make a piece of digital goods and you make $1,000 off it, then that's my grand, not yours.

Which is why there are big stock photo/video sites who basically screw over the little person but are at least legit. They pay their up loaders, albeit small amounts, to generate profit off having tons of content. Way more content than any one individual can create. So the same as Megaupload, only, they're not stealing or encouraging people indirectly to use their service to host any and all files you'd like to share while we knowingly look the other way towards our profit margins.

Anyway, that's mostly a rant at this point. :-p

@carnivorous
not trying to butt in on your penis waving contest (ok.yes i am).
but i think what some here are trying to convey to you are your broad generalizations.

i am sure your points do apply to some of the younger generation but in no way represents ALL of them.

i am getting long in the greys and i know MANY of my generation that expend far too much energy on:social networks,candy crush and full out gossip and complaining (good lord do they complain).

i know this is veering off topic,but its a worthy topic.

my boys are in their twenties.they all are hard workers of the manual persuasion but they are all having a hard go.
this happens and the times are not ripe for an easy run.
do you know what bothers me the most about watching my boys struggle?
the fear.
they are afraid,uncertain and unsure.
when i was their age i was fearless.

when i was their age i was working for my friend who was a lighting director for russell simmons.def jam summer fest world tour baby!
traveled all over the country and the carribean,duffle bag in tow.
learned how to coil cable right proper too.

ok.not at first.
totally screwed that up the first night.
so my buddy made me unravel every inch of cable (even the ones done right by him and others) and learned the hard way how to coil cable proper.
you have any idea how MUCH cable is used for lighting?
well neither do i but im gonna go in measurements of miles (or hours of lost sleep,you decide).

i guess my point is (if i even have one):
manual labor has its advantages but so do intellectual pursuits.
they actually compliment each other.

but dont judge this generation too harshly.
they are afraid,
and uncertain.
something we (or at least I) never really had to deal with on that scale.

and so ends my rambling incoherent rant.
think ill go fix that broken screen door i have been putting off for ages.
yall got me in the mood to fix something.

I'm not sure if you actually disagree or just misunderstand. I have no issue with fantasy, except when it's put in place of reality. I enjoyed LOTR and Hobbit, and I even want to see Pacific Rim (although I must admit I'm embarrassed about it). When fantasy replaces history, history is lost.
When you tell a story that's historical in nature, I (and many others) feel you have an obligation to your audience to teach them the actual history, not to bastardize and fictionalize it with fantasy and Neo. I'm sorry if you feel that way of thinking makes me a jerk, it wasn't what I was going for. I feel it makes me an adult that is unapologetic about being interested in amazing history more than flashy fantasy.
My point about Lincoln has been ignored or misunderstood...would you have liked to see him fight a confederate dragon? Would that have added to, or detracted from the compelling adult story being told? Was Lincoln Vampire Hunter as good a movie as Lincoln in any way? Did the addition of Vampires help you understand the person or time period, or would it have confused you about the historical facts if you knew nothing about the subject(s)?
I understand 300 was not meant to be historical, but it has the same issues with adding fantasy and drama to a well known, historical story. This is a big pet peeve of mine, as I feel most people have a tenuous grasp of history at best, and are not served by being told about historical events in a clearly non-historical, unreal, dramatized, and fantasized manner. It is especially egregious when there is no historical version to point to (in English at least, there is Chushingura in Japanese) when discussing the subject. I read mostly science fiction, and I read both 300 and The Gates of Fire, and while I loved 300, I wish the latter had been made first. I have read many versions of 47 Ronin, and none of them had a dragon or any unrealistic fantasy. Any of them would have made a great action packed adult movie with many lessons to teach rather than just a fun few hours watching Neo save the Asians. To me, adding the fantasy is tantamount to saying the story isn't compelling enough without embellishment, and this one certainly is. To me, it's the same as exaggeration, it's like admitting reality isn't good (or bad) enough to make the point in your argument. Pure fantasy is exempt from this issue.
P.S. sorry for the essay.

I guess the concept of "pioneer" is totally lost on you...One very influential factor is multitrack recording techniques that opened a way for musicians to tell totally different tales. Pink Floyd or Queen, they would not exist without Beatles. Without them you got no Muse.

So while you continue to underrate Beatles, the music you have in you favorite player wouldn't exist without them. Just picture, worlds #1 band starts to experiment with music and what did we get? A revolution in music, away from the catchy pop tunes to art rock.

You've lost if you're arguing with an 11 year old at all.

>> ^Barbar:

Applying the oversimplified version of laws that you learned in early physics classes to reality can often leave you in stunned silence when reality seems to defy them. Things like the dimples on golf balls or sailing ships moving upwind are classic examples of things that you wouldn't expect to even be conceivable unless you saw it in action.


Conceivable or not, none of the things you mentioned break the first law of thermodynamics.

One situation where the system could work would be if the car was driving into a strong headwind. This would give an energy input into the system. It could be perhaps developed to extend the blades if there is a strong enough headwind, and retract them if there isn't, but if there is no breeze, there will be a net loss from using the blades.

If the car is driving through stationary air then the air it's passing through will have no kinetic energy. After passing over the blades the air will be moving, it will have gained kinetic energy. That energy will have been taken from the car. It's as simple as that. No complicated equations needed. You'd need the complicated equations if you wanted to calculate exactly how much energy is lost, but you don't need them to see that energy would be lost.

If wind is factored into it then the air already has kinetic energy, which would be extracted by the fan, but the wind would be and external source of energy (in the same way that a wind turbine isn't in any way a perpetual motion device, it's obvious where the energy is coming from).

They're both kinda petty nitpicking, but there's a pretty big difference, both in substance and style.

The supposed issue behind NotOptimalGate is that Obama was showing a disregard for the lives lost. If you watched the interview, or even the actual video clip of just that question and answer, you can tell that's not the case at all.

With binders full of women, I didn't really get the sense that people were really thinking that phrase itself was a big problem, just that it was an inartful phrase that seemed to be the launching point for a whole lot of jokes made at Romney's expense.

So on the one hand, you have Republicans willfully distorting what was said in order to gravely accuse Obama of being disrespectful towards the dead in the aftermath of a national tragedy...and Democrats using Romney's inartful turn of phrase to make fun of him.

One seems really unscrupulous and hostile, the other seems like the kind of trash talk you get between sports fans when the other team fumbles the ball.
>> ^bobknight33:

Republican stupid reaction Not Optimal gate. Just as stupid as the Democrats the week before with Binder gate.

I wasn't sure if you were serious or not, but I'll bite -

Everyone was a slacker at some point. When you were a young child you did very little to help the family. When you did start to have responsibility you didn't understand why at first and only did the things because you were told to.
Its a gradual change into a person who understands that certain things have to be taken care of for, your own sake and, the sake of your family. To think someones life is automatically fucked up because they are a slacker is disgenuine.

Are you implying that between say 13-23 you didn't too stupid irresponsible things that would make others worry about you for your own selfish pleasure? I doubt anyone could deny they were more selfish than not during part of their life.

I am not saying drugs are required to make drastic realizations. If your daily routine has little or no changes you will always think in the same basic pattern and it takes some external event to change this. It could be a new job, a new love, a death etc. Taking certain drugs lets you control when these changes in perception occur rather than being a slave to fate.

No where in my original reply did I say anyone (myself or others) had to depend on drugs to make decisions. I stated two basic ideas - drugs can help you to make changes and that everyone should experience them at least once in their life. I also didn't say that the single time the person did them would create some epic change.

Something happened to you that caused a strong sensitivity to what I said. Maybe it was me telling you what to do, maybe someone you knew used drugs and became a loser, maybe my speech pattern reminds you of someone bad. I can't say what it is but if your strong reaction is genuine then I am sorry to dig up such anger.

Not all drugs are created equally. I would like you to view this chart http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Drug_danger_and_dependence.svg Notice that LSD has a lower dependency than pretty much everything, including nicotine and caffeine.
Secondly the average dosage is between 60 and 180 MICROgrams. Do you understand how small that is? It is essentially impossible for it to be adulterated. You could mix it with drain cleaner and and the amount you are ingesting would not cause damage.
The industry accepted lethal dose is 15,000 micrograms, which would be FIFTEEN PAGES of paper you would have to ingest. I don't think you could fit that all in your mouth

I am not convincing you personally to take it but be aware that a significant scientific breakthroughs in business/technology/science have taken place while the person was on some form of drugs. You should also be aware that most artists (both audio and physical) use drugs to create the inspiration for the works you enjoy.
One time I figured out why fire on the head of a match is the shape that it is and how the flame is constructed. Months later I explained how I perceived it to someone qualified and they said even though I lacked the proper technical terms I had gotten it right. I was very happy about that.

Like I said previously, not all drugs are created equally. LSD does not make you feel anything extra, it only enhances what you are already seeing or feeling. It gives you the ability to super focus on details you overlooked previously or zoom out and take a large amount of data in at once then process it.

I think my reply will be lost on you but hopefully someone else is reading this and will gain something from it. If it means anything to you I have taken acid only twice in the last two years.


>> ^schlub:

Since when is not deciding to being a slacker a revelation? Your life/lives must be pretty fucked up if you depend on hallucinogenics to make your life decisions for you. This notion that drugs expand your mind or make you see things more clearly is complete and utter bullshit.
>> ^braschlosan:
Because of LSD my little brother had the revelation to start doing well in his final year of high school and try to make his parents life easier.
Then while in his first year of college he had the revelation about many parts of life and decided to study hard and play hard too. Now he has fun on the weekends and is getting great grades. The combination of the two has given him infinite self esteem.
During the summer break after his first year of college he had another LSD revelation about taking drugs. Now he rarely takes them (in high school he was a big pothead and E-Tard), when he does take them its planned out ahead of time for a special event. He's not even 20 yet and has a "wise" outlook on just about everything.
I have had similar life altering changes because of LSD that I'd rather not share here,
I agree with Enoch.
>> ^enoch:
for those who may be a tad uptight hallucinagenics should be mandatory.
if only once in your lifetime.

yet another moron who seems to think troll means "someone who disagrees with me"

you've already lost when you use troll in that manner as you're admitting you can't think of another good argument

I get so exhausted sharing and talking and fighting for/against causes that i care about like this. That's why politicians seem to frequently get their way; they have no other job, they mime bullshit for a living.

However, every time I hear someone talk about how they dont give a shit about politics it gets me fired up enough to keep going.
--
--
I attended a funeral this weekend and had a few cousins come up to me "what's up with your facebook page, is that like the government posting that on there or is that you doing it?"

"Oh it's me, I post a lot of things about politics"

"Why do you care so much about that stuff? I just dont even pay attention to any of it."

"Well, take what happened last week in the Supreme Court for example; Do you know what decision was handed down regarding strip searches?"

"No..."

"Well, the supreme court, as you obviously know, renders the final decisions on cases, and those decisions become law of the land. Basically what happened last week involved a man who was arrested for a traffic stop and was strip searched and held in jail for a solid week while the police were trying to figure out what the man had been telling htem all along; there was a computer error that led to a false warrant for his name."

"So?"

"So now, since they ruled against this man who sued the police from his city who arrested/strip searched him and lost, if you or I are taken into custody for ANY reason, we can be subject to a complete strip and body cavity search. Do you care about that?"

"WTF they can't do that!"

"They can and they are because people dont care about politics. Now fuck off!"



("Now fuck off!" added for dramatic emphasis and not actually spoken at the funeral viewing ceremony)

In short, yeah yeah, I'll help you fight your crazy cause you crazy kid.

EDIT: shared on social media and sent letters to my congress peoplez !

>> ^lantern53:

Any 'Occupy' event is protected by free speech as long as you are assembled in a lawful manner. When you 'occupy' an area in violation of the law, you risk arrest.
But meeting at the local church is out because these people don't like Christianity, and they won't meet any other legal place because it would not elicit the press coverage they desire.


you have no idea what you are talking about.
many of the rights you enjoy were hard fought by practices implemented by the OWS movement but they are in no way a "new" practice.
this is about clogging the cogs of the machinery of government and business and little to do with press coverage.
why?
because those in power will ALWAYS attempt to marginalize the voices of those who challenge said power.
as we speak the senate is voting on NEW restrictions which makes certain protest areas a felony and no longer a misdemeanor.
think that is a coincidence?
that the bill being passed just happens to coincide with the OWS protestor population rising?

and lets not forget st paul and the RNC convention in 2008 and the authoritarian practices implemented by the st paul police and the so-called "free-speech" zones set miles away from the actual events.

you can go all the way back to the early 1900's and find how protestors got their message across.the labor movement comes to mind.
or the civil rights.
vietnam protests.
there were deaths at the hand of police and hired security firms.
beatings and maimings.
intimidations and bullying.
but those protestors used the very same tactics being used by OWS...
hell,they perfected those tactics.
and they are extremely effective.

i could go on...
but you are obviously an authoritarian and the magnificent history of peoples movements in america are lost on you.
and the comment about the OWS movement disliking chritianity just seems fabricated,or at its best painted with an extremely broad brush.
it still smacks of you not knowing what you are talking about.

Excellent response!

In reply to this comment by messenger:
I'll make this fast, paragraph by paragraph:

Don't quote your fairy tales at me.

Baseless assertion.

Don't quote your fairy tales at me.

Sex isn't an idol. Sex happens to be one of the best things a human can experience. If it weren't we would die out. Otherwise, yes, I agree. If something feels like the right thing in my heart, then I do it.

I'm not a sinner. Your lot invented the concept either to claim superiority and power over others, or as a device to beat yourselves up with, and I simply don't accept your judgement. If God existed, then yes, I would have broken his laws many times. But he doesn't (see, that's my own assertion), so there's nothing to break. You certainly don't know better.

It's not nihilism. It's just nature. Nothing's more natural than that. I know what wrong sex is. I don't do that. I am well in control, or certainly more than Mr. O'Neal appeared to be. And why would I limit myself simply because it's enjoyable? I like bacon, beer, ice cream and riding my bicycle. They all give me extreme pleasure and no suffering. Should I stop doing them simply because they give me pleasure? That makes no sense. No more sense than giving up sex would, considering I don't accept your assertions about God, and so neither do I accept your judgement of me.

Don't quote your fairy tales at me.

Your religion is controlling your mind. I too am at rest in terms of my morality. As I've probably said to you in other threads, I'd love to know of some God-type thing, but just choosing to accept one religions's dogma isn't the way.

Any misery I have caused by violating God's laws are violations against my conscience as well -- things I knew deep down were wrong. Everything else I've done that is against God's laws has had no miserable consequences. Assertion. Assertion. Assertion...>> ^shinyblurry:

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death
That's your version of history, but it isn't the correct one. In the beginning, God made them male and female. I also understand that you're incapable of seeing sex except through the lens of your own gratification.
Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
You said it yourself, it's as close to God as you get in life; it's an idol for you. The law your idol gives you is the pleasure principle, and whatever seems right to you, that's what you do. You don't think you're doing anything wrong because it makes you feel good.
The very last thing anyone wants to hear is that they're guilty, especially when it involves something they enjoy. You don't like to think of yourself as a sinner, even though you have undoubtably broken Gods laws thousands of times. It's the front that people maintain, as if they are white as snow; how dare you accuse me! I know better; all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Your conscience is burdened by your secret sins, and Gods knows, even if you pretend they never happened. God will forgive you, if you repent and ask Him into your life. If not, you will answer for all of them at the judgement seat.
Your moral relativism is nothing more than nihilism. Man brought sin and evil into the world, and he knows that some things are absolutely wrong. Everyone understands this at an intrinsic level, but the reasoning is corrupted by carnality. The mind will do anything, believe anything, to justify its own sin. It will lash out, dismiss, reason away, mock or flatly try to destroy anything which sheds light on its misdeeds.
John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
I know what's going on in my own mind, and my mind is at rest. God gives me peace, and I am free. Do you control your thoughts or do your thoughts control you? You see religion as a crutch, and to some it is, by Jesus takes away crutches. Everything the world needs to get by, I can do without. All I need is Jesus, and He is my sufficiency. In that is hope, joy and love.
Sin always has consequences. Maybe you're not honest enough to admit to yourself the consequences sin has brought into your life, but I guarantee you, if you looked at everything in your life that you have done which is against the law of God, you will see quite a bit of misery that you could have avoided. You might even think it was worth it, but you don't see the flip side of it, of what you have lost that you never knew you had. God has a plan that is better than your plan, to give you a hope and prosper you, but you choose to do it your way, and you reap what you sow. You cannot see the pitfalls that are ahead of you. You have blinders on, because you love your sin more than the truth.