>> ^swedishfriend:

You would really get riled up about Gandhi and Martin Luther King then as they provoked the law as well. If the police can break the law openly and on film and still get to carry a loaded gun then maybe gun rights are kind of important. Or do you prefer to wait try to fight enslavement once only the police and the military have guns?
>> ^spoco2:
No, see, I really don't like dickheads like this.
Smug little shit who has read up on one law and then has probably gone out carrying a gun PURELY to run into a cop and be able to spout off this shit.
What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?
He thinks he's being some righteous individual, standing up for the rights of citizens everywhere... IN WHAT WAY? Hurray sir, you've been able to walk around with a loaded firearm. You've improved our lives in what way?
If you want to improve our lives by railing against authority figures, why not do it by standing up for rights that actually IMPROVE our lives?
Just dangerous stupidity on this dick's part.



You are the exact type of person I refer to in paragraph 3 of my post.

Trying to say that this guy is in ANY WAY like MLK or Gandhi just demonstrates how utterly you have failed to grasp this.

Him having a gun on his person makes everyone less safe (including him), not moreso. He's a dick who loves guns and feels like a big man by walking around with one on his hip. He's discovered he's within his rights to walk around like that, and likes to wave that right in people's faces, no matter how scared he makes people or anything else.

The LAW may be on his side, but that doesn't make him 'right'...

I for one sure as shit don't want people walking around on the street with sidearms.

You would really get riled up about Gandhi and Martin Luther King then as they provoked the law as well. If the police can break the law openly and on film and still get to carry a loaded gun then maybe gun rights are kind of important. Or do you prefer to wait try to fight enslavement once only the police and the military have guns?
>> ^spoco2:

No, see, I really don't like dickheads like this.
Smug little shit who has read up on one law and then has probably gone out carrying a gun PURELY to run into a cop and be able to spout off this shit.
What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?
He thinks he's being some righteous individual, standing up for the rights of citizens everywhere... IN WHAT WAY? Hurray sir, you've been able to walk around with a loaded firearm. You've improved our lives in what way?
If you want to improve our lives by railing against authority figures, why not do it by standing up for rights that actually IMPROVE our lives?
Just dangerous stupidity on this dick's part.

>> ^spoco2:


What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?

1: On general principle, I support the idea that people should be allowed to carry guns, in the same way that I support the right to be drunk. Yes, it's not big or clever, and yes, it can lead to dangerous and/or criminal behaviour. But there are laws against driving drunk and laws against threatening/shooting people with a firearm. I don't really like the idea of legislating for potential outcomes.

2: On the other hand, stopping a person for carrying a gun seems like a completely reasonable position to take for a police officer. If you want to carry a gun, then you must be prepared to accept that consequence, in the same way as drivers must accept the requirement to produce a valid driving licence.

3: Finally, I'm fully in agreement that walking around carrying a gun is pretty much being a dick. Being a dick, however, is not illegal (see 1). Circumstances may arise one day, I might want to be a dick and it's important to know that my legal right to be a dick is protected.

This guy is just an asshole though.

No, see, I really don't like dickheads like this.

Smug little shit who has read up on one law and then has probably gone out carrying a gun PURELY to run into a cop and be able to spout off this shit.

What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.

"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?

He thinks he's being some righteous individual, standing up for the rights of citizens everywhere... IN WHAT WAY? Hurray sir, you've been able to walk around with a loaded firearm. You've improved our lives in what way?

If you want to improve our lives by railing against authority figures, why not do it by standing up for rights that actually IMPROVE our lives?

Just dangerous stupidity on this dick's part.

Thanks for the promote.
In reply to this comment by legacy0100:
*promote

This reminds me of when, as a kid, I used to be scared of a fictional character I'd made up. I knew it was in my head, but that didn't stop me from getting myself all worked up. That was part of the game, but the fear was quite real. I wonder if this isn't something similar, play as a way of conditioning the nervous system to react to different stimuli. When there's nothing to fear, you invent it in order to learn how to deal with it.

@ SpaceGirlSpiff, great sift btw.

@ Shinyblurry
Disclaimer: your quotes of my post say 'A10anis said'. Wouldn't be good for A10anis to get flak for any of my comments/opinions.
I didn't properly frame-quote you again this time because i couldn't be bothered trying to separate your quotes from mine, but your response was much more respectable imo

Regardless of what your point meant to be, what your hypothetical story states is to act on another persons unverified word, that is not rated as trust worthy by past events. People aren't likely to do this on any other subject, because their reasoning will interject and a request for evidence will be made.
E.g. kill that women because she's a witch.
In this case you're likely (i hope) to either want proof beyond reasonable doubt prior to acting, or will disregard the request. For me, same goes for other extreme cases like the idea of God existing or any God being the correct one.

I didn't say pride had no affect. Your statement was that pride was the 'only' thing stopping A10anis, i disagreed and outlined a few other things stopping me personally. For the record, my bio states "Proud to be an atheist". There's pride alright, a fair bit of it, but it doesn't start, dominate nor end the subject for me.

Quote "Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?"
1. Firstly, although humans are still learning about many subjects and haven't yet fully explained everything, we've done a remarkably good job so far over the past 400 years, and are at a stage where we don't need Gods in order to explain things and are content with mysteries over magic while we figure things out.
2. Because there's no evidence, I leave it to those who make the incredible claim to prove it. 'Spaghetti monster' argument, onus is on the claimer for proof.
3. I also look at the size of the universe vs the size of the claimed favorite species and see it as an illogical waste of effort. It's like building the entire earth for a few ants that will exist for a few minutes.
4. But my favorite is the psychology of it. Leaving this out because I would write a novel and loose my weekend in the process.

Re the sun comment, I've read a few religious books as i was walking away from the whole concept, some cover to cover, others skimmed through them, didn't like the ideas of how horrible stories were passed off as 'good' because of a belief in God.
But now days I do take most statements like my sun one from net searches, and yes, you're right, the book doesn't say it directly. But it not far off seems to imply it a few times, at least enough for the head of the Catholic church to have gotten behind the idea for a decent period of time.

Original sources? No sorry (had a bit of a search but lost interest), I'll give you this link instead, review it if you care. Reason being, if my statement turned out to be wrong, I'd accept it quick smart as i don't actually care whether Jesus was like others before him or not, and if i was right, again wouldn't care but also i doubt it would have much impact (a general statement re believers). I made the comment because from what i have read previously it seemed plausible.
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html

Investigated Christ? Bits and pieces, but not a complete investigation by any means. The guy either died a long time ago or never existed. So I'm at a bit of a disadvantage and lacking a devoted level of interest to go balls out on the research. I settle for the notion that we're able to come up with plausible concepts and explanations without involving a God.

Quote: "I would suggest it is the distorted lens through which you see God that informs your negative opinion of Him."
I agree, if by distorted you mean 'different' to your lens.

Oh I'm with you there, I'm such a big fan of BSG that this won't stop me from watching it :-)>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^toferyu:
Talk abouty a shitty trailer !
Somebody thought editing meant splicing random .5 sec shots together one after the other.
Too bad.

You're right, but I still want to see the show based solely on the previous Battlestar Galactica series.
I actually watched, and sort of enjoyed Caprica- must have been the only one though. I feel that show was cancelled before it got its feet under it. Hopefully this new show will be the one that science fiction fans have been waiting for.

I'll participate however I like, and if that means mocking this thread then I will do so and YOU CAN'T STOP ME!
>> ^JiggaJonson:

@Issykitty I hate when people say "blah blah blah drama"
It reminds me of when friends start to dick around when we're playing basketball. Everyone else is pulling their weight playing and they're suddenly kicking the ball down court for no good reason.
"Wtf brah?"
"It's just a GAME man chill!"
I have no illusions of playing in the NBA, but that doesn't mean I don't take myself seriously and try hard for the sake of trying hard (even when it's "just a game"). To him, I say "Stop kicking the ball off the court or stop playing; you jackass"
Similarly, when I'm faced with 'This drama is silly but I'm going to keep throwing my two cents in while saying it's silly to do so! SILLY!'
I can't help but say, if you don't care about it and want to make it clear that you don't care about it, don't participate in the discussion.

>> ^legacy0100:

I see both sides of the argument. Personally though, I would've let the police search the car because:
1. The cop stopped me for suspicion. The quicker I resolve his/her suspicion, the quicker I'll be on my way.
2. If I refuse, it only raises suspicion, so the cop will keep his suspicion.
Then again, I'm not a black person. So I don't know if things are a bit different.


yah the thing is The nice part of me would be like sure search but what happens then is it becomes the norm as it is now and then the law doesn't operate properly.

so its important now that people only let the police search if they have probable cause and if the police then do bullshit to go around that they need to get into trouble.

I see both sides of the argument. Personally though, I would've let the police search the car because:

1. The cop stopped me for suspicion. The quicker I resolve his/her suspicion, the quicker I'll be on my way.
2. If I refuse, it only raises suspicion, so the cop will keep his suspicion.

Then again, I'm not a black person. So I don't know if things are a bit different.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Any martial training lacking combat realism is useless OR a sport. Krav Maga teaches to never stop fighting and use any weapon. It initiates the adrenalin dump, and gets people used to being hit, even wearing protective gear.
I respect Master's dedication but the rest us won't spend decades and thousands learning how to imitate a drunken animal for a fight with an excellent chance of never taking place.
I submit: not even a martial arts "expert" can subdue more than 3 attackers at a time unless he has some kind of weapon. A guy with zero training hopped up on adrenalin and wielding a knife has an excellent to even chance of killing or severely wounding Master Squirrel.

Much as it pains me to admit it, QM is at least partially right. A very good martial artist can take down two people at once. More than that and there are just too many variables.

And yes, give some idiot a knife and the situation gets serious. It's possible to disarm them, but it's not easy and there's a very good chance of getting hurt in the process. If you come against someone who knows how to use a knife, run like hell.

That said, self defence is not the only reason to study martial arts. I have neither the desire nor the expectation of ever getting into a fight again, but it won't stop me training.

I like everyone calling the guy with the camera an asshole. Hey, you know what? I, like most Americans, drive around a lot. I also drink alcohol maybe twice a year, a couple of glasses of wine at Christmas dinner. I don't need a bunch of assholes fucking stopping me in the middle of a road when I'm trying to get somewhere in my fucking car. You want to catch drunk drivers? Here's a fucking tip: not everyone who happens to be driving around at night is drunk, so leave me the fuck alone and go do something USEFUL. Everybody gets up in arms when police racially profile, but I don't see anyone defending me for being fucking driving-at-night profiled.

>> ^bmacs27:
Can you point to the specific passage you are referring to that suggests that there is an inverse correlation between dollars spent enforcing copyright, and profitability? (I assume that to be your assertion).

My basic assertions are two

1. Nobody has provided any evidence that shows an inverse correlation between "piracy" and profit for the industry.
   
2. Nobody has provided any evidence that shows an inverse correlation between number of "piracy" lawsuits and number of "pirates".
   

Furthermore, the opposite correlations have been shown to exist for at least the first case, and the second seems almost completely decoupled.

I am not asserting that the RI/MPAA does not waste their money alienating their customers. Only that when they do that they don't have an evidence based economic reason for doing so.

I object to the industries "common sense" observation that they "must" be losing money ( when they are making the same or better money than prevailing trends would project at less expense ) being taken as a given without the slightest concern for facts.

If you search for "Could the industry as a whole be gaining" that's near the beginning of the details I'm referring to. Lessig cuts them a lot of slack, but the basic facts he lays out don't conform to the industry narrative I am disputing.

Full disclosure: my annual purchasing of music and movies went from ~$100 to ~$500 the year I started file sharing, and then from ~$500 to $0 the year the MPAA served me with papers, and I stopped file sharing. I'm biased, but I have been following this whole thing very closely, and I know they made money off me sharing, and they lost money by stopping me.

>> ^shuac:

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^westy:
Lol what a retard !
takes the bibal litraly fail

Yeah, because Alice Cooper is broke and living in a box under a freeway, and doesn't have millions of bucks, fame etc...
There's a fail somewhere here (grammar, spelling and being a pretty terribad at trolling most likely), but it's not Alice Cooper, even if I believe he's deluding himself that a god actually exists.

So let me understand your reasoning here. Stop me if I get it wrong. You're saying that because Cooper has money and is for all intents and purposes a success, he can't be in error? Is that right?


Of course not, he might well be in error, but that doesn't automatically make a 'fail', particularly in the face of other successes in his life. I can disagree with his belief system without condemning him or making fun of him...