That laptop is wicked pissa!

They bring a tanto, you bring a wakizashi, they hurt one of your ronin you kill five of theirs.

It's the Tokyo way.

So this is designed to defeat airport security in order to allow terrorists from the planet Mongo to hijack planes?

What an awesome new way for me to gouge the shit out of me ankles when I walk past a book-case.

Three words come to mind: Tiny Hippie Dicks.

Careful, don't bust that nut.

I can't believe the guy who wrote so well in his "Monday at Morton's" series is the same douchebag who does this now.

crackofthebat: Hey, George Costanza learned a lot from Frogger; and I know exactly how much feed and bullets I would need if I had to set out on the Oregon Trail. I'm also fairly certain I could defend up to three cities with one button and a trackball.

haha.

Alexis I really don't know what point Critical Mass thinks it is making because as far as I know all it does is make everyone who ever encounters it frustrated with cyclists, often to the point of burning anger and generalization of this anger to the entire group of cyclists on the road, not just Critical Mass. Is that their goal? If not, they should rethink their methods.

Nearly every exercise of peaceable assembly was met with similar comments at the time they occurred. "Why do those uppity coons need to make such a fuss?", etc.

And the original point was to demonstrate how fucked up it is to try and bike in the city, obviously that sentiment is still valid in NY.

Possibly the largest and most important aspect is to demonstrate the power of people coming together and to shake up those who would prevent this from happening. In fact the more such a gathering is repressed the more important it becomes to demonstrate that it cannot be repressed.

You're better off asking why people still go to church if you're going to question gatherings which seem to yield no tangible results.

Ceronomus: BTW, there is no constitutional guarantee for the right to live. It's part of the Declaration (it's not even in the Preamble to the Constitution) and as meaningless as "the pursuit of happiness"; actually Long v. Virginia at least cited the pursuit of happiness in a case overturning state laws on interracial marriage so it has more meaning than a guarantee of "life". There is, however, a right to peaceable assembly, it's part of the 1st amendment.

When they take your fist, use the second.

Ceronomus: I assume you're responding to me, if not disregard.

I specified that I advocate violent defense of the constitution and, by extension, our civil liberties after those in overall authority have ignored evidence that such trespasses have taken place.

If you're government refuses to support your rights then you can either bend over and let them drive or revolt with violent means, because you've been left no other recourse.

Police make mistakes, and so long as they are answerable for those mistakes then there is no real problem. This, however, is one of many examples of the emerging police state. You think this is exaggeration, probably, but this is how a police state gets started. These polices are not being held accountable by those whom should be answerable to we citizens, so it's time for them to answer directly.

When anyone, pig or otherwise, decides to infringe on any of my constitutionally guaranteed rights and those in authority over them choose to ignore this in spite of substantiating evidence then I advocate using my second amendment rights to take back whichever other rights they are attempting to quash.

That's right, I'm advocating using violent means to defend democracy. Remember kids: Violence as a tool for democracy and liberty, it's not just for Iraq.

tim: I'm in real trouble since I'm not only an organlegger, I'm also carrying an unlicensed fetus. I guess I'll have to plug in my droud now so I can cease worrying.

Amalgamated Regional Militia, anyone?

Craphappy:

1) Define "naive" and explain how "hating on cops" is an example of someone fitting that definition.

2) The problem is not really with cops acting like normal folks, the problem is with cops violating the laws they enforce and getting away with it.

Now you say "How many of you guys....", but your epic FAIL lies in the fact that what you should have said was "How many of you double park, etc, and expect to get away with it?" Of course the answer to that is "Only those BB users who also happen to be cops. The rest of us do not expect to get away with it."

MasterSauce: No reasonable person is suggesting that all or even a majority of cops are assholes when compared to any normal societal standard. However several points should be acknowledged:

1) Cops and related persons are responsible for enforcing laws. If they disregard those laws in matters concerning themselves or other cops then you have a class based justice system in which members on ons profession enjoy an exemption from the general standard which we all must observe. Allowing this to proliferate leads to further trespasses against the public good of a more serious nature.

2) While most cops, just like most non-cops, are good people; the few assholes out there are often protected by what is referred to as a "blue wall of silence". This is an article of police culture which basically prohibits even good cops from assisting in any investigation of bad behavior on the part of other police officers.

3) While the camera person and many people who support this kind of action are indeed kind of pricks about it, this is usually the kind of party to make the more general populace aware of an issue. It is seldom the moderate party that initiates change, it is typically the extreme minority which makes the larger moderate majority aware that something is taking place and through agitation they stir up the complacent masses into action.

phillamb168: I wasn't raised to allow any jagoff in a position of authority, or who want to make you think they have some authority, to get away with shit that any citizen can't get away with. I was also not raised to allow myself to get steamrolled by people, this means fighting back through varying degrees of escalation, words, shoving, punching, etc.

Generally if I'm calm and someone insults me then I'll respond in the manner I feel will best shame them. Depending on my perception of their intellect this may be subtle or it may be vulgar, sometimes it is subtly vulgar. If I'm dealing with some form of imbecile or I'm stressed (perhaps anticipating a further escalation into physical violence) then I may go right towards cussing.

You're treating profanity as if it involved sacred words or words which violate some sacred trust. All swear words do is function as a form of abbreviated emotional indicator. I would put it to you that you have too much reverence for the English language, and that your reverence is not shared by a majority or at least not to a degree that they would insult someone for responding to a cussing out with cussing of their own.

Tenn: No sweat, I just figure it was another case of one of the net's biggest failings, the inability to see the smirk I had on my face as I was typing.

I should have fallen back on the FARK tactic of typing "/sarcasm" at the end of my post.

Kewl. I knew there was a reason I carried a camera all the time.

phoenix21: thank god someone got those references.

JackCastile: you know what facilitates easy exit from a motor vehicle? Not being a huge fucking whale.

Also, at least in my city and I'll wager it's probably pretty uniform, police on a call may be exempt from observing parking/traffic guidelines (obvious reasons). Unless there was a 911 call about a sammich that needed to be eaten this fatso was not on the job.

phillamb168: I believe she (the old, supposed retired, porker) cursed the cameraman first, so his swearing back wasn't really out of line. Unless you feel that "cunt" is like the nuclear missile of cuss words and therefore it should never be used (unless on is British, I guess). But I'm of the opinion that if you start a cussing match then you can't rightly claim a foul because the other party engaged in escalation.

Elysianartist: I bet she could chase the shit out of a pastry thief; sadly, however, all the evidence was "lost" during the arrest. No, I was covered in crumbs before the chase!

Also: any internet lawyers want to speak out on the notion of the (il)legality of filming our porcine overlords? Citing some official text would probably be a plus.

I believe M.C. Ren said it, with authority, "Fuck the police".

I hate comics fans who feel the need to use the most obscure "inside" references to a character from a comic book, as if doing so makes them cool.

I was talking with my fiend James Howlett and my other good friend Frank Castle about this the other day.

Gross. I hate textile art.

Pearl S. Buck is going to sue the shit out of those guys.

You shoulda' gotten Niven involved, then he could explain to kids about how illegal aliens are draining hospital resources and how you can fix it by spreading rumors in Spanish. then if Barnes was there Niven could say "Hey, I'm not a racist! I know a black dude! Back me up Steve, or we won't collaborate on another Grendel book!"

Watch out, some of those people know martial arts n' stuff.

His mouth looks kinda like a swollen outer labia.

Djh Thrs ws slt, tht s ll.

Stacyj: The only way to really be sure if you have an "adult sized mouth" is if you do adult things with it.

So pix or it didn't happen.

It's an attractive watch, but something about designers who make overly compley objects just for the sake of complexity bugs the shit out of me.

also the BB comment problems are bugging the shit out of me too. Someone get on that.

Karsten: Didn't Jesus know ahead of time he was going to be betrayed and murdered? If he knew this and went along with it, that's pretty much suicide too.

Is that a giant cocklump in his pants or do leather pants just look that way?

13 feet isn't a Gundam, it's barely an Elemental.

noen:

You're probably not far wrong about Socrates. I've found that his reductive argument style is about the fastest way to piss your opponent off without really breaking form.

I think it is fair to say that at least Plato thought Socrates got some measure of personal enjoyment or satisfaction from nitpicking arguments and even his death allowed him to be a "true Greek" (he had opportunity and even tacit consent from the jury to flee Greece and thus have his life spared, he chose death).

Xopher: You're too quick to say that an unusual mental experience is somehow appropriately associated with magic or mysticism. If introspection (either aided through isolation or chemistry) is what you really mean by mysticism then I've plenty of first-hand experience with it, both for entertainment purposes and explorative purposes.

And while opening the doors to perception (to borrow a phrase) might be something I would heartily suggest anyone try, it is not mysterious or even removed from the context of physical science. Anyone who studies such experiences and the methods used to facilitate them (ie: meditation, LSD, etc) should understand that the emotions and sensations are originate through chemistry and psychology.

I'll grant you that if you are a secular humanist or some variation which holds to the "self is god" principle then yes tripping balls might be a mystic experience. But aside from relating shared experiences with other trippers it isn't a mystic experience, at least not in the way most people would consider the term "mystic" to imply.

Xodarap: I can't believe I missed this but you stated the following:

"NO philosopher would agree with you that we can't know anything."

and

"I *am* a philosopher. Please believe me that I've done the studying and know what I'm saying."

You should re-read the Euthyphro, specifically the Apology. Plato writes, Socrates speaks: "I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."

Certainly a the implication is that nothing can be known, at least not by mortals in in that awareness comes the only trues wisdom (ok, and an inherent contradiction; but those guys were drinking from lead pipes for generations).

Xopher: The word "apparent", let me point it out to you.

As for first hand experience with mysticism and me having no first hand experience with it, guess what nobody has any experience of a first hand nature with it because it's bullshit.

As to your statement that mysticism has nothing to do with "believing in things", no believing in mysticism has precisely something to do with "believing in things", things which don't exist. Like Leprechauns and the healing properties of crystals.

As to not wishing to argue with me: Have you been arguing with me? I've seen precious little in the way of argument coming from you and directed at me. Refutation isn't argument, you may be unaware of this. If you are a theist I would advise you to seek out your nearest Jesuit brother and ask for guidance, of all the xtians they have the most solid tradition of cogent argument as a part of institution.

Evofus: Actually in most contexts since faith in a god or divine entity is part of some covenant between the faith holder and said entity wherein an exchange of certain behaviors (prayer, honoring your parents, etc) for certain rewards (elevation to a higher status as a living being or residence in an exclusive heavenly neighborhood) and further balanced with the treat of possible negative acts should the individual fail to observe the aforementioned behaviors (hell, reduction in rank after reincarnation, etc) the only truly good deeds which are certain to have been done for the sake of goodness are those which have been done by an atheist.

An xtian or even a Buddhist (or whomever) may be doing a good deed out of pure kindness, but since they buy into a belief system involving rewards and punishments based on deeds they may just be acting out commerce.

Xopher: "Logruszed 108: I understand now. You're a proselytizing evangelical atheist."

You know, that's a pretty good description. If I can convince someone to abandon a superstition and turn to physical science and reason then I see this as a good act. Fair enough, although I don't knock on doors or hand out pamphlets or have special bookstores to help me with it.

"You don't mind if we keep our quaint beliefs as long as we understand that you're just a tiny little bit superior to us."

sometimes it's more than a "tiny little bit", depends on if I'm talking to someone who says "I believe that there is an energy connecting all living things..." etc, or someone who insists the Earth and the universe is 6,000 years old or thereabouts. I'd imagine you feel superior to people who buy chunks of "the true cross" out of the back of tabloid magazines, or people who believe G.W. personally orchestrated 9/11. Am I right in this assumption?

"Your belief that you're better than people of faith is irrational and unjustified."

Your apparent belief in a divine entity is based on less evidence than my belief in my own superiority (to whatever degree) over those who believe in magic beings or mysticism.

There are more written words depicting the existence of dragons than there are depicting Jehova/Yaweh or whatever, but I bet you would think someone who regularly practiced some form of ritual to prevent dragon attack or to placate dragons was pretty silly.

muaythai:

I'm the person who first used the "sky wizard" term in this thread, and I will absolutely call out a Buddhist, or a Jain (wtf is a Jain?), or a Hindu, or whomever on the basis of holding any faith in the mystic. You must not have actually read all the comments which offended you, instead you just scanned for little offensive bits; otherwise you would have seen my clearly state that the issue is belief in that which not only cannot be proved but is also a least likely hypothesis.

I'm not saying you can't be a cool or a nice person and believe in whatever brand of voodoo you personally are in to but it does mean that at least a part of your will or your mind is devoted to adherence to irrationality. that means you're at least a little bit crazy (or stupid, you could be stupid but I'm granting the benefit of the doubt here as you seem otherwise cogent).

Now I have friends who believe some really stupid non-theistic stuff, actual friends. they believe weird conspiracy stuff or they think Coldplay is a good band, etc. I'm still friends with them but there is always a part of me that recognizes in them a little bit of insanity.

Xodarap:

Galileo's Roman Catholic faith and belief in dogmatic law was overcome by rationality. It landed him in jeopardy of excommunication, possibly death or imprisonment. Because of his strict adherence and friends in high places he was allowed to recant his statements and promise no further inquiry as to the nature of the physical universe in areas where it may have conflicted with Catholic doctrine. Arguing on his own behalf he once stated "The bible teaches us how to go to Haven, not how the heavens go."

It was not his faith which allowed him to succeed in science, it was his looking past his faith which enabled him to do this.

"MUCH of the logic we now owe for everything we hold dear as rationalists OR epicureans, we got specifically from people attempting to "pin down" the nature of God."

Maybe so, but they also and in every example would have had to go beyond "faith" to do this. And none of them ever managed to prove any of the mystic claims they were looking in to. Think of how much people with such bright minds could have gotten to had they not been hampered on issues of spiritualism, or how much an average person could get to if if were not for the same distraction.

Xopher:

Explain how the "Neo-Wiccans" (which by itself shows you don't know shit about either Wicca or NeoPaganism) are fucking anything up for you? How do animists negatively affect your life?

In the same manner, albeit to a proportionally lesser degree, as any other belief based on mysticism negatively impacts us all. Propagation of anything which detracts from rational inquiry lessens or detracts from rational inquiry. There is only so much human intellect to go around, reality TV, soap operas, theism, etc. are all diversions that are of doubtful personal value in terms of enrichment and certainly do not contribute to any general progress for the human race as a whole when compared to direction rationalism.

As for neo-Wiccan/Pagans. You certainly don't think that Wicca or paganism as practiced today bears any real resemblance to the cunning man/wise woman tradition of the previous centuries do you? There isn't even a linear progression from the old beliefs to their revival. The only plus I can say that these "faiths" have going for them is they don't proselytize.

Malex: I get your point, but if they believe in a god which is not actually an entity and has no supernatural abilities then don't they really just believe in spending time with people singing songs or having quiet time on whatever sabbath they observe? Perhaps they enjoy the belief that they are in communion with other humans who share a similar family and personal background and similar ethos? Is this what you you mean to describe? Because I define belief in god as explicitly belief in the supernatural.

And I'll say it more explicitly: Belief in the supernatural is stupid and/or infantile (I think it's ok for kids to believe in magic, the Easter bunny, or whatever).

semiotix: Why should people who have irrational beliefs be free of ridicule, or at least why should those beliefs be guarded from ridicule?

If any deity takes offense at my use of the term "invisible sky wizard" in invite it to strike you down in order to get my attention (stolen from Carlin, obviously). The only logical reason to kowtow to these delusional twats is because the wield disproportionate influence and therefore some otherwise rational people feel the need to bow and scrape, or some people confuse intellectualism with passivity.

Frankly people with these phony bullshit beliefs are the one's primarily responsibly for fucking things up for the rest of us, and this includes Pagans/Neo-Wiccans, animists, Joos (theist, not ethnic), and all the rest. I'm fucking sick of them and their crutch, kill them all and let entropy sort them out.

/ok, don't actually kill them; but don't ignore the fact that these beliefs are based on either willful ignorance or outright stupidity.

This woman taints my political party with her stupidity and insane belief in invisible sky wizards. She needs to STFU and GBTW.

Is that little faerie a boy or a girl? I need to know so I can decide in which way to feel shame for inappropriate arousal.

@#11: There should be a service of clean, compassionate people who are willing to shag terminally ill people who just want a good boning before death.

I remember actually thinking that if I knew a "Chloe" as depicted in that movie, then I would probably nail her. Same thoughts I had when Helena Bonham Carter did "The Theory of Flight".

"Well, I'm still here. But I don't know for how long. That's as much certainty as anyone can give me. But I've got some good news: I no longer have any fear of death. But... I am in a pretty lonely place. No-one will have sex with me. I'm so close to the end and all I want is to get laid for the last time. I have pornographic movies in my apartment, and lubricants, and amyl nitrite..."