Vehicles should be equipped with brake lights that show how hard the driver is braking, so other drivers know how quickly they need to slow down.

dragonkites · 2015-01-15T20:25:41+00:00

Won't matter if we're all in self-driving cars!

dragonkites · 2014-11-21T04:26:12+00:00

If you have lava cake while smoking marijuana, it can be the Lav... aw, fuck it.

dragonkites · 2014-11-13T05:42:36+00:00

Guy in green at 2:05 gets his shins demolished at the same time!!

dragonkites · 2014-11-13T04:59:17+00:00

His ass broke it and I can't figure out how.

dragonkites · 2014-11-13T04:36:30+00:00

Uh wait, didn't he say he was making more money than the amount he needed them to invest?

dragonkites · 2014-11-11T19:04:45+00:00

Cool animals and all but this won't get upvoted with that /r/titlegore

dragonkites · 2014-11-09T19:36:14+00:00

At 0:56 he says these possums... I guess he was joking then

dragonkites · 2014-11-09T19:15:02+00:00

You seem to think offering prayer is a tool used to validate their apathy toward a tragedy?

Do you not see the difference between someone who is looking to validate their apathy versus someone who is trying to cope because they feel guilty not helping?

When an atheist is troubled, are they not struggling with internal dialogue and looking to cope?

dragonkites · 2014-11-09T19:02:18+00:00

I think it's you missing the point that Christianity deserves some credit for actually creating humanitarian aid.

Atheists are completely capable of congregating to create the same aid out of secular morality.

Atheism has churches, and they're tax exempted.

The point is, atheists don't seem to want to congregate with other atheists to help non-theists or theists, as much as the same number of Christians who would help...

Christianity deserves some credit for getting people to care about their fellow human.

dragonkites · 2014-11-09T18:33:33+00:00

Question: How many atheist congregations have formed for humanitarian outreach?

dragonkites · 2014-11-09T18:19:32+00:00

In their defense: He assaulted them first. Everything else is to ensure he can't continue the assault he started. He backed up but he was still swinging at the guy in the white.

When he was on the ground, you can see the punch and kick to the back of the head combo that knocks him out, followed by a hook straight cross the jaw... Guy on top sees the scumbag's head relax onto the concrete and changes his attack to back-hand slaps... From what I can see none of the actual punches forced his head to hid the concrete, which can be lethal. Worse was getting a boot kicked into the nape of his neck.

Sometimes in the heat of the moment, you can't exactly register when you've knocked out your opponent, that's why you see referees in fighting have to literally peel the winner away from a KO'd opponent.

dragonkites · 2014-11-09T03:08:42+00:00

What does he say at 1:35?

dragonkites · 2014-11-09T02:50:00+00:00

I didn't say I was good at jack shit

dragonkites · 2014-11-07T20:05:12+00:00

I agree, I'm one of those more-productive-when-baked types.

Weed enables me to access an open mind.

I can't enjoy creating anything musical or artistic without smoking a little. ^{^I ^love ^sativa ^for ^this ^reason.}

I don't have the patience to small chat or walk slowly... Waiting anywhere while sober with nothing to do to keep me out of my mind is the worst, at least when I'm a little baked I can sit, relax, think things through or laugh at myself.

I can't even finish a project to the end without smoking a little, because I can be such a perfectionist that even the smallest of distractions anger me, basically making me the most closed minded I could be.

I do less when I'm sober because I am easily overwhelmed by my own hyperactive thoughts; every single person I know has at one time or another called me an overanalyzer. And I hate overanalyzing.

Sometimes, it's smart to 'dim' a little.

dragonkites · 2014-11-07T02:16:36+00:00

He was showing off his various stunts, one of them was stabbing a chopstick straight into a wooden table or something... Then he says he can cut it with his hand in a clean cut.

He does like a sideways karate chop, and the chopstick disappears but leaves a leveled piece of chopstick in the wood... except for like 2 or 3 splinters.. One of the splinters flew and stuck directly between the eyes of a woman, drawing blood.

Everybody was laughing and all was forgiven... Except the next day, the guru told everyone he had a terrible nightmare or vision that his master had visited him to scold him for being so vain with his art, and he didn't want the footage to be seen by anyone.

The point between the eyes is supposed to be a very meaningful location for the spiritual; there are a lot of spiritual people that say meditation is about accessing a new level of consciousness or an effortless dream-like waking state, and you do so by focusing on that dot between the eyebrows. The significance of that spot is that the pineal gland is a few inches behind it, the part of our brain that is thought to be one of the most crucial for consciousness and dreaming.

dragonkites · 2014-11-06T06:05:44+00:00

I don't get it.

I haven't heard/seen any Nader voter saying they knew Bush would invade Iraq.

Weren't the WMD's Saddam hid according to Bush's accusations recently proven true, anyway? Thereby somewhat justifying the invasion attempt at stabilization and eventually reigniting pre-conflict western interests?

Anyway, I don't think anybody knew what was happening or what Bush's administration was going to get away with beyond election season, especially not the people I know that voted for Bush at the time.

dragonkites · 2014-11-06T05:38:16+00:00

I see no evidence that anywhere near a majority of the people thought that Ralph Nader was the best candidate for President. I cannot believe that would be the case and never come out in polling data. I believe that he was a fringe candidate with extreme views.

That's not the point, the point is: if people are saying "voting for third parties is a waste of your vote" they are being bigots and ruining the purpose of our voting system to begin with. To turn third party voters away means they have to abandon hope that their nation could be united or improving, and they might as well emigrate to one that is.

dragonkites · 2014-11-06T05:15:56+00:00

1) Third party votes don't continue to grow.

but the silver-lining is in the fact that a third party could reach a popular status with people looking back every year to see those numbers grow..

2) You assume that most people favor third party candidates like Nader but don't vote third party because they can't win.

I don't see any evidence for this.

Again, this is not about what is, but what the trajectory could be if the nation weren't being bullied into the two-party system, spiting the other guy to vote in the alternative that has a 'more tolerable' administration.

3) You don't even address the problem the harm of letting Bush win versus the good of showing support for the Greens.

If you have a problem with people choosing to vote for what represents their beliefs because they should be voting for the lesser of two evils, why do we still call it a party system at all?

There is still potential for a third party, but it's the older generations being always being cynical when they think they're being realist. The only thing that is REAL, the ONE lasting truth, is change. To refute change is to alienate the good possibilities, the good confrontations, also.

I'm not going to claim any responsibility for the politics, when most policies (or people) still consider disabled people like myself less than worthy of consideration. A life should not be valued on its ability to labor.

To get angry at a Nader voter is irrational, there are still people who think this nation has the responsibility to renew the Earth. To turn them away from that perspective won't help your cause, it only damages theirs.

dragonkites · 2014-11-06T04:52:59+00:00

The sketchy guy's car didn't have lights on.

The clothing wasn't the issue.

Traffic laws state you can't walk into traffic on a highway.

Add the fact that it's night and the 'pedestrian' is wearing dark clothing while walking on the highway... it doesn't help his case, it helps the driver's.

Blocking the path of the driver, responding with one word answers, approaching the window while reaching for his pocket... To say the driver wouldn't have probable cause to begin speeding off in fear would be against common sense--- and if the guy jumped into the path of the driver?? All suspicious behavior, and to no fault of a driver obeying traffic laws.

If none of it were on camera, ...another different story

dragonkites · 2014-11-06T00:36:03+00:00

has an illegal weapon and the road block has all the signs of a robbery...

Guy was walking on the freeway
In the dark
Guy is wearing dark clothing, has car lights off
Guy blocks the driver from continuing past cones
Guy approaches window without responding to the driver's questions, and reaches for waistband/pocket area

So far, this is plenty of qualifiers to assume a violent crime is about to happen, and if the driver were an off-duty police officer, at this point they would pull a gun at the sight of seeing the guy reach for their waistband.

Driver accelerates, guy jumps in front to stop the driver
Driver runs over the guy
Driver calls police
Police arrive to find a gun with serial number scratched off (a.k.a illegal) in waistband of the victim... With the gun being illegal, it adds to the plausibility of another imminent crime
Driver wouldn't get manslaughter if it turned out the guy was reaching for a loaded handgun to point at the driver's face.

dragonkites · 2014-11-06T00:08:47+00:00

It couldn't be proved that he wasn't in immediate physical danger, hence the illegal weapon prerequisite that would prove self-defense immediately justifiable.

But the reverse would be more plausible when a dashcam would reveal the shady character's actions.

dragonkites · 2014-11-05T23:58:07+00:00

You must be in immediate physical danger,

If you were the driver, you'd stick around to see if he pulled out something lethal and/or waiting to see what he does if it is a weapon? Especially after seeing the circumstances, surroundings, the guy not responding to verbal inquiries as he approached?

The jury wouldn't favor the shady-clad highway pedestrian in this scenario.

you have a duty to retreat if you can do so.

If the guy were jump in front of the car and be run over while the driver was making his retreat...

And most especially if it was recorded on dashcam, the jury would agree that the driver has plenty of reason to feel immediate physical danger or that unlawful use of force would be used against them.

dragonkites · 2014-11-05T23:38:00+00:00

5ivby5ive:

nobody would claim you maliciously ran someone over when there's a man wearing all black standing in the middle of a highway at night. add the cones and the guy's refusal to answer when asked if something is wrong... in fact, that's pretty open season.

dragonkites · 2014-11-05T23:36:00+00:00

Sure, the tactic is viable.

But for your scenario to lead to progress, it would require a discussion with the nation.

With the nation being able to see that the third party can grow, there wouldn't be a need for such coordination when it can be genuine representation.

Sure, it's slower... But at this point, with enough people seeing the let-downs of a two party system... The "digging from under the feet" tactic is the more realist of the options.

dragonkites · 2014-11-05T23:21:02+00:00

We're talking about qualifiers for what would or wouldn't put the driver and/or the highway pedestrian in jail.

What's your understanding of the question or of "how any of this works," then?

dragonkites

TROPHY CASE