LesActive

All laws are subject to interpretation by those who run the game. Not a lawyer? Then you're not licensed to interpret them 'properly'. You don't get to effectively disagree with the interpretation. You are at the mercy of the game managers and referees. When understanding is denied, from where comes inexcusable ignorance?

Rue, just a question, if you please, as I don't really wish to engage you in a debate on a topic that absolutely baffles me: does the term, self-defence, carry a different meaning in Israel than it does here? Self-defence tends to apply at the instance of attack. From what I've seen the more correct term is, retribution.

This seems like an "if you've got nothing to hide...." scenario designed by Orwell himself. Do you really want everyone to know your spending habits? How much you earn? How much and what kind of stuff you have in your house? If this knowledge became public then not only will the gov't be able to keep tabs on you with much higher precision but also marketers could use the info to target you for specific products and those with nefarious intentions could use that info to relieve you of your burdensome goods. This society is way too large and complex to be considered tribal. I freely admit that I work for cash only, set my own hours and feel strongly about my privacy so this is a no-win proposition for me. I don't know anyone who would be ok with this and I have difficulty understanding why anyone would trade their privacy for an extra day off. If it were an option, then perhaps but anything other than voluntary consent in this area smacks of total information awareness. Will we also get wireless cameras in our homes too? Why not? You've got nothing to hide, right?

I lived in Vancouver for 12 years (born in Ontario) and eventually left for two reasons: rain, clouds. The year I left, there were a reported 189 days of rain PLUS the cloudy days. I was a little depressed from a back injury that year and the gloom just put me over the edge so I moved back to Ontario. I will admit that the previous 11 years were glorious. When that sun shines in Van, well, there's not much like it elsewhere in Canada. It almost redeems the gloom. I have set up home from coast to coast and nowhere did I experience burning eyes from rainfall as I did in Toronto. I spent two years there and apart from the first few months of excitement for all the things to do, the city and its people eventually wore me down. I could complain of the elements that drove me away, not least of which was population density, but most points have already been covered here. There is a little issue of a bloated sense of entitlement that being moneyed brings that became obvious quickly but I guess when you live there for long enough you might start to accept it as the norm. I'm not a very good consumer though, so perhaps Toronto and I simply don't see eye to eye for that reason. I'm now in a small city about an hour from TO. It's estimated that by 2050 this city will be attached to Toronto by suburbia. I will have moved by then. You can have it.

I spent the last week going through this whole thread (yes, I had time to kill) and I'm actually quite satisfied that I did. I've learned a lot about fear, including the term "metaphobe". I quite like that one. IMO, tighty whitey of the old stock lost the debate (and the court challenge) so folks are STILL free to express their various faiths in harmless ways. Huzzah! As much as I dislike the legal system, they got this one right. Bring on the ninjas!

"No true Christian/Muslim/Jew/Buddhist would ever..." All religions presume truth yet none agree, even within their own ideology. How can an adherent avoid judgement of the 'other'?

Recent studies have suggested that proto-humans existed as far back as 300 000 years ago, much further back than the previous estimate of 130 000 years. How does that square with your interpretation of the Bible estimate of 10 000 to 15 000 years, which is around the time of the last great ice age? Anthropologists want to know.

Words are wasted. To start a discussion to promote a pov then respond with non-responses when questioned is kind of futile, no? What was the point again?

I understand grace. I am rejecting it as unnecessary to the appreciation of existence and inevitably harmful to the existence of others with different views. It is pure ego to suggest that there must be a specified justification to exist, especially when it is the one which you hold most dear. Faith and science are irreconcilable until faith can agree that science wins out in the realm of reason. If, however, science finds God, well, that's a different story altogether. If we all have grace yet still disagree then what is the point of thinking it is of any use? When you tout the veracity of a fantastical book then I'm afraid you're in one of those forms. That will be taken as evidence of a predetermined outlook which can only prejudice one as to the facts of existence as we discover them. Others in different faiths will be opposed. There must needs be conflict. This is what faith does best. Justification for our existence will not be found nor agreed upon. Get out there and enjoy existence for its own sake!

Why think of God(s)? If such an entity exists then we are integral to it, albeit, an infinitesimally tiny piece. If we are an expression of God through creation then what need have we to contemplate it? What need does God have for our contemplation? The ego of man believes that we are special in that we have the capacity to contemplate such things so such things must be actualities. Imo, this is a delusion of grandeur, the exegesis of which is called the Bible. Unfortunately for us (and you), there are competing forms and some wish to kill you for not believing in theirs. This is God's will? Preposterous.

What a lot of fundies seem to conveniently gloss over is that Jesus allegedly formed a new covenant with his followers in that he claimed to have fulfilled the old law and replaced it with his own. Why do they, the most ardent believers, go against their saviours wishes with such alarming frequency and expect everyone else to understand their 'good faith'? Nonsense is better than no sense.

What's the big deal? Let the homophobe follow his conscience. I doubt forcing him to drive the bus would change his attitude. He doesn't sound too bright anyway. Had he not said anything the chances of him being randomly picked for the job were likely quite slim. Otoh, if they pick him to drive, now that he has voiced his opinion, would it not be aggravating? I think firing him for following his ignorant beliefs where no actual harm would occur would be wrong. There are plenty of other routes to drive.

Easily my favourite genre, these are ones that haven't been mentioned and which I would watch again. Most cerebral: Primer- made on a budget of $7000, it's a unique look at the conundrums of time travel. With that budget you should expect no special effects and little cheese but it will warp your brain by the end of it as you try to figure what just happened. Not a light film, it will require a rewatch. The two writers/directors also play the main characters in this, their first film. 9/10 Upstream Color(sic)- By the same directors as Primer but they now have a budget. Absolutely engrossing film with barely any dialogue as the directors are content with letting the imagery tell the story. You could call this a minimalist film as you are the narrator connecting seemingly disparate events. At the end I was left in awe of their achievement. There's not much that is 'new' these days in filmmaking as far as storytelling goes but this one does something completely original, it lets you think for yourself and in that way is incredibly satisfying. Slow to start, it's tension builds in a way that would make Hitchcock proud. 10/10 Most fun: Brazil- one of my all time faves; Terry Gilliam (Python alum) directs in this dystopian film about a clerk (Jonathon Pryce) who is the victim of a typo that sends his life spiralling out of control. Gilliam is a master of old school film effects and after the success of his 'Time Bandits' (also fun) was allowed a budget that would meet his vision for this story that he had wanted to tell for decades but couldn't afford it. DeNiro cameos briefly and brilliantly. 10/10 John Carter of Mars- Disney poorly marketed this one. While it is definitely a 'Hollywood' movie, predictable and formulaic with a rather pat ending, it is a lot of fun and gets you rooting for the hero despite his pedestrian acting abilities. Bryan Cranston cameos. 7.5/10 Pitch Black- predecessor to "Chronicles of Riddick" (tres fromage), it's suspenseful and dark and Vin Deisel is not so annoying in this one. 7/10 City of Lost Children- from the directors of 'Delicatessan', Marc and Caro made this dystopian movie as a kind of adult fairy tale wherein the main protagonist is an old man living on a modified oil derrick who can no longer dream so he sends his henchmen into town to capture children to extract their dreams for his consumption. Everything about this work is so well done it's amazing to me that this film goes mostly unnoticed. Ron Perlman is great as the hero/strongman and the opening scenes are some of the most frightening you'll ever see involving Santa Claus. 9/10 with trained fleas. The Prestige- star packed and directed by Christopher Nolan, this is a great story about the conflict between two competing magicians around the turn of last century. David Bowie plays Nicola Tesla. That alone is reason enough to see it. 9/10 Oh, I could go on but these should keep you busy for a while.

So, if you are black you can expect to be harassed and the reasoning is that half the people in jail are the same colour. Natural born suspects. That's just wonderful. Isn't that something like prior restraint or are there different laws for different skin tones? Do shades of black matter? Please, explain like I'm 5. The police in Rio are well known as the most corrupt force in S. America so.... what's your point? Is it that the people in the states should be thankful that their police forces aren't AS corrupt? My point in bringing up the UK stats is that there are other ways to effectively police without so much violence. Are there no gangs in the UK? btw, I may be stupid at times but I am neither right nor left. I don't participate in that paradigm which is why you'll never see me post in threads solely related to partisanship. I'm interested in people and how they relate to one another and their environment, not their party politics.

If shoulds were woulds you'd be correct, however, police will lie and cover up for each other as well as sanction those other officers who don't play along. Not sure of the exact figure but over 5000 people in the U.S. were reportedly killed by police since 2000 while just over 500 officers were killed during the same period. 623 non-officers killed just last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States I'm not seeking proportionality here or justifying officer deaths but the officer death rate has gone down significantly, especially considering population growth, while the concern over officer safety is leaning toward paranoia and citizen deaths are rising. The paranoia is simply not borne out by the numbers. See here for officer deaths since 1791: http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html and note that the hype over officer's rising safety concerns is just that. Hype. You are 300 times more likely to be killed by police in the U.S. as compared to the UK. Over there, police have killed 55 people since the early 1900's. There's a culture of violence in the U.S. and the police are doing little to engender the support of the populace by not speaking out against their errant brothers, the ones who think violence and bullying is always the answer, often enough. Maybe if they'd police their own then all deaths would drop. But I suppose that's just wishful thinking. They support each other in their violence. That's one interpretation of the 'facts' with which I'm sure that all racists would agree. The other, most obvious interpretation in light of the brief history of policing that has been presented to you by WIP, is that black people are still being disproportionately targeted and that that practice is skewing the numbers to reflect what you are implying. I guess it's just a matter of perspective, or privilege.

There is so much evidence of that kind of 'policing' to be found everywhere across the U.S. that it's incredibly difficult to believe there are still police apologists willing, no, anxious to excuse this behaviour as valid enforcement of law and order as the term is commonly understood. All it would take is a quick search for "walking while black" on youtube and the spirit of modern policing will be apparent. There is a sickening smugness in the diatribes of those who hold the state up as a god to be feared and obeyed. Trite aphorisms such as "Economics trumps virtue" lay bare the focus of the society they would prefer. Wage slavery and economic/race segregation is alive and well, and they're ok with that. Other peoples' rights mean nothing so long as they can hold onto their 'wealth'. Wealth, btw, that has been inflated beyond value on assets that don't exist. Ugh, I need a coffee.

I've noticed and admired your patience. Just when it seems like no one could be more obtuse than one poster that another comes along and one-ups them. Even though I expect it here it's still surprising that it's an actual methodology of some.

Prove it. He's assuming facts not in evidence. It's the easy way to frustrate a discussion board.

mmhmmm, a favourite tactic of those who'd rather not question their own assumptions despite evidence to the contrary. Ah forums, so fun and so aggravating.

There is a lot of surveillance done on activists so if Sandra Bland had previously caught their attention through her activities she could have been on a list. A unique, somewhat alliterative name like hers might stick in the mind. As to the preceding text of your post I would only add that given the provenance of police forces as means of holding back the rabble from looting those who profit from them, it's inevitable that the police would be less stringent in their duty of care in respecting the rights of others when going after the low hanging fruit: those without influence who can least afford decent representation after the fact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Web007rzSOI - Strange Fruit, Billie Holiday

THC can last for weeks in the system after ingestion, passive or intentional. The toxicology report is not a reliable indicator that she was 'under the influence'. She may have smoked in the past couple of days which could trigger a high THC count but it is not evidence that she was debilitated at the time of the incident. The so-called debilitating effects do wear off relatively quickly. I can eat a poppy seed bagel or an over the counter Tylenol 1 and test positive for opiates but it doesn't mean that I'm a user or that I was high at the time of the test. Unless the thinking here is pothead=felon, or guilt by association, as a way to justify what occurred then I'm not sure what bearing this report will have on the outcome.

I will wait and see what the court says before I come to that kind of conclusion. You are welcome to assume, however.

He had legal grounds up to a point and then he crossed the line into unlawful territory. Read the definition of 'lawful' that I posted to clear up this seeming 'contradiction' you perceive.