unixknight

I do? Where? I stay out of the way of other people's right to express themselves precisely because I demand the same in return. I believe the only reason to silence an opinion one doesn't like is because they're afraid to hear it. If a person wants to stand up and spout empty rhetoric then I can certainly respond by providing my own side, and have enough faith in it that my beliefs will prevail. The people on my wargaming site know I'll respond if they want to debate something with my own arguments. That's what open discourse is all about. (dude, can you imagine ME keeping quiet when I hear something I think is foolish? ) By all means, step up police patrols in the area. Be open to informants. Watch them all you want. I'm as aware as you are where the terrorist threat is concentrated, speaking demographically. What I"m not willing to do is compromise the Bill of Rights. If we do that, then we lose all moral high ground.

A topic just for fun. So last night I had Star Trek: Voyager playing on Netflix to provide some background noise while working on stuff. I love Star Trek, even though I've turned criticizing it into a sort of hobby. Today will be no different. Last night's episode was Lineage, a 7th season offering in which one of the characters, B'Elanna Torres, discovers she's pregnant. (It's okay folks, she's married.) Now as it happens, she's a half Human half Klingon hybrid, and had a rough childhood filled with bullying from other kids, and guilt for feeling like it was her fault her father left her mother. (Yeah... I know.) So the ship's doctor shows her a holographic projection of what the child will look like, and it is clear that the child will also show heavy Klingon physical traits. B'Elanna, worried that the child will have the same problems she had (including driving away the human father, as she believes she did herself as a child) decides to try and get the doctor to go in and re-sequence the child's DNA to remove the Klingon traits. Now, I get that the purpose of this episode was probably to examine the ethical ramifications of fiddling with genetics, trying to produce children with certain traits, etc. A story like that would be perfect for a sci-fi setting and could have been done very, very well. Unfortunately, being in the hands of Voyager writers, it... fails. Miserably. Essentially the script failed to convey B'Elanna's concerns as being at all rational, and, as usual, B'Elanna comes off as belligerent, stubborn and aggressive rather than sympathetic and relatable. When the Doctor expresses reservations at performing the procedure, she tries to get her husband to convince him. Naturally, the husband is totally against trying to tinker with his unborn child's genetics. Undeterred, B'Elanna tries to get the Captain to force the Doctor to perform the procedure. The Captain wisely refuses to do so. So what does B'Elanna do next? Does she talk reasonably with her husband, expressing her concerns in an honest way and talk it out? Nope. Does she accept the wisdom of the people around her that she claims to respect and hold in high regard? Nope. Does she do any soul searching, to ask if it would really be necessary to risk her child's life on the assumption that this child MUST have the same issues she had? Nope. She does the following: She reprograms the Doctor to tamper with his medical judgement, making him willing to perform the procedure. She tampers with the hatch to sickbay, making it impossible to open using normal means, including the security override. She sets up a forcefield around the sickbay treatment station, so nobody can stop the doctor from performing this procedure. So basically, she's telling her husband, her friends and her commanding officer that, no matter what they may have to say, she's doing what she wants and that's the end of it. So in a single act of what is essentially mutiny, she commits the following crimes: Unauthorized modification of a critical starship system (The holographic Doctor) Unauthorized use of security protocols to restrict proper access of starship facilities to the crew. (Sickbay. What if someone else had been injured or was ill?) Unauthorized use of a forcefield to interfere with ship's security. Disobeying an order (The Captain was deferring to the Doctor's medical judgement and ordered her and her husband to work it out between them.) Mutiny Endangering fellow crewmates (by restricting access to sickbay) Initiating an unlawful medical procedure (If it were lawful, the Captain would have no authority to say no) Not to mention the morally and ethically questionable acts of: Tampering with a friend's mind to force them to see things her way (The Doctor) Making a unilateral decision about the child without regard for the father's side and forcing her wishes Abusing her technical skills to subvert ship's security, systems and equipment Making unnecessary and risky modifications to her child's body based solely on her own unhappy childhood experiences Demonstrating a willingness to place her own wishes and judgement over that of her doctor, her Captain and her husband. Of course, the others are able to stop the procedure before it's done, and after a tearful and melodramatic conversation with her husband, B'Elanna relents and agrees to leave the child alone to develop naturally. Her own inner fears of the hybrid child driving away the dad are expressed and addressed, and all is well. The ship continues to fly through space, back to normal. Maybe I'm just not a forgiving enough person, but I feel like there should have been.... I dunno... some consequences for the actions of this irritating and odious character. Captain Janeway: Should have put B'Elanna in the brig for at least a month with a reduction in rank. Her higher level security clearance revoked. Tom Paris: Would have put her on notice that he has no desire to ever abandon her, but if she continues to undermine and poison the marriage in this way, including endangering the child(ren), that might well destroy the marriage. The Doctor: Should have told B'Elanna to stay away from sickbay until further notice unless she's bleeding, dying or in labor. Her husband could handle her bumps and scrapes. (He's the ship's medic as well as helmsman.) I think the biggest problem with this character is that she's given far more authority, responsibility and yes, forgiveness than she can handle. This episode is only one of many where B'Elanna does morally questionable things and everything is always forgiven because she's a gifted engineer and is needed to maintain the ship. I don't know that I entirely blame the character as a concept... the writers obviously wanted her to be a sympathetic character but more often than not she just comes across as annoying at best. I don't know whether the blame rests with the writers, the directors or the actress, but it's probably shared. The other problem is that she is a character meant to represent someone who is conflicted by having one foot in each of two worlds... Human and Klingon. The problem is that we already had a character like that: Worf. And he did it far, far better. He was a full-blooded Klingon but had been raised on Earth by human parents. He had his own struggles and conflicts but he generally resolved them in a more constructive way, sometimes accepting help from friends when he needed it. He did this and remained likable and relatable. B'Elanna was just a failed character from start to finish.

Why would I need to? Refusing to silence someone else in the name of free speech isn't the same as providing them with a venue to do it. That being said, I run a website for my wargaming club, and some of the members of that club are pretty left-leaning and in come cases, even hostile to religion. Generally they're respectful but occasionally a political debate pops up and they speak their mind. Not once have I ever deleted a post or banned one of them for their opinions, even though the site belongs to me and I'm its sole administrator. If they were to become outright abusive or threatening, I'd act, but never to simply silence opinions I don't like. I know what you want me to say, but this set of analogies misses the point entirely.

The problem with your examples is they have nothing to do with what I said. I explicitly said that suspecting specific individuals of specific crimes, that isn't profiling and has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. Sure, I don't disagree with this. I'd add to that by saying people should be better educated on their rights and why it's a good idea to exercise them at every possible opportunity. The trouble is, profiling doesn't end there. Are we talking about pulling people of particular demographics over, subjecting them to the embarrassment and inconvenience of an unnecessary traffic stop? Are we going to implement "stop and frisk" all over the country - but only for Muslims? What about inside one of these Muslim communities? Is it supposed to be okay there? That's right, but it still represents an ideal. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -Attributed to Voltaire Or do you prefer "I don't like what you have to say, so since I'm not the Government I am perfectly justified in silencing you. -Attributed to guys who are sheltered by the First Amendment but don't really believe in what it means. I'll take the former, thanks.

This quickly? Nope. Apple did it. Think about it. Was Apple's motive in fighting the court order mainly about heroically fighting Government intrusion or was it about protecting their brand? And if it was about protecting their brand, Would they really say no if the FBI contacted them and said "Hey, win or lose, this fight would cost you massive amounts of money. How about if you just do what we want, and in turn we agree to publicly drop the case to make it seem like you successfully warded us off and we found our own solution? Win/win?" What does a gigantic corporation, whose primary motive is profit, do? Because I can tell you whatever mechanism the FBI would have used to decrypt that phone, it wasn't a brute force attack on the password. In theory, they could have decompiled the OS, made the changed they wanted, recompiled it, and unlocked it that way, but a process like that is a LOT harder than it sounds, and would not have been completed this fast. So if, in fact, Apple did unlock it for them secretly, everybody wins except the American public. The FBI Wins: It now can get into iPhones at will, and the American public doesn't know how it accomplished that. Apple wins: It looks like it fought the good fight and "beat Town Hall" as it were, and isn't to blame for the success of the FBI. Anyone want to bet a week's pay against a jelly doughnut that an upcoming Apple ad campaign will feature its new and improved security over the current iPhone? Does anyone believe the FBI would have just dropped the case on its own for no other reason, even after finding its own way into that phone, thus setting a precedent that companies can defy the Government? Anybody?

If that's to be the tone of our discussion, this ought to be interesting. Who said anything about leaving out a person's race as part of the physical description of a suspect? As much as it seems to annoy you when people put words in your mouth, I'd ask that you avoid doing so to me. I don't have a problem with including any and all attributes about a specific individual when describing them. That isn't what profiling is. People often use that approach as a way to circumvent the protections of the Bill of Rights. It's like saying an employer who fires an employee for having a bumper sticker that supports a particular point of view and then justifies it by saying that Free Speech protections don't apply to private citizens. While that's technically true, I find it to be a copout because it's a way of benefiting from those protections without really believing in them. One either believes in the ideals in the Bill of Rights or they don't. Again, that isn't profiling. You're talking about specific individuals engaged in specific behaviors. When people talk about racial profiling (or profiling on whatever other basis, such as religion) they're talking about broadly treating people in that category as suspects. (For example, pulling over a black person driving down the highway for no other reason than he's black.) There's a big difference between looking for a specific individual for a specific reason, and casting a broad net for all people of a certain description for no specific crime. The former is not profiling, and I have no problem with it. The latter is profiling, and it is incompatible with the ideals of the Bill of Rights.

The problem with racial profiling is that it runs counter to the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty. It also violates the 4th and 5th Amendments. While it's true that simply stopping and questioning someone is a far cry from convicting them, or even accusing them of a crime, what it does do is to put an ordinary person in a position to have to prove his or her innocence by having to answer questions or submit to a search. And if the person does exercise their rights and refuses to answer questions or allow themselves to be searched, what then, is the point of the profiling?

No, I don't think so either. What I'm worried about is higher level stuff. Slippery Slope isn't a fallacy when there's an established pattern...

I know you aren't calling for that, but I'll bet that's where it would ultimately go.

I've always been of a divided mind in this issue. While I don't disagree with what @LeSellers is getting at, I'm wary of how a system of surveillance could, over time, be abused or just start crossing the Constitutional line. Besides which, it's one thing to entrust the Government with the ability to closely watch communities of a particular religious group when the President and/or the Congress is friendly to your, but would we still want a precedent like that in place when we have a Government that's hostile to our belief system? Heck, the one we have has a miserable track record of relations with the LDS Church and it got a lot better for a while, but now seems to be sliding back. Is this something we want? A Government that's got a precedent for increased security and attention on religious groups? Is it worth it? Is there no other way to minimize or prevent the type of chaos we are seeing in Europe?

That isn't a valid statement either, IMHO. To follow Jesus Christ is to be a Christian. It isn't like those theological and ideological differences are with a particular organization that has an exclusive claim to the word.

Yeah the server had moved to a different URL and I'm not even certain it's still being maintained. The Temple project is mostly complete but it isn't in a place where it's viewable at the moment.

I think what omega is saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that a guy who chooses to be involved in hobbies like anime and gaming is someone who is necessarily limiting his field of options when it comes to finding a mate because of the stigma that's sometimes attached to those activities. (Right or wrong, that stigma does exist in some peoples' minds.) That being said, if a person has chosen to limit their options in this way, it makes no sense to then turn around and bemoan their plight in having trouble getting a date. If they want to widen their options, they would have to make themselves more desirable to a larger number of potential love interests. @omegaseamaster75 Is that correct, omega? If that's what you mean, then I agree, although I'd never advocate that someone try and change who they are just to attract someone. The right person for each of us is some one who will love us for who we are, and not for our ability to conform to the expectations of others.

Only if his refrigerator is clear of any suspicious jars.

I'm still confused by the notion that anyone would assume otherwise in the first place. (In other words, if she feels her actions are excusable because she didn't know the journalist as within his rights, I'd ask why she assumed he wasn't by default.)

Assuming that was directed at me... the video I linked to was meant to be funny and make a point about corporate advertising creating cultural norms. I have zero interest in the question of whether diamonds are actually plentiful or whether their cost is too high. There's more to the thread than the issues you guys are fighting over.

I feel like I'm missing something as I read this. Was there more infantile behavior besides the singing, or is that what you mean? I just don't see what there is to complain about here.

Sorry to be that guy... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU Adam Ruins Everything - Why Engagement Rings are a Scam. Warning: There's a little rough language in it, being a College Humor video, but the information is well worth watching... If you aren't worried about having your illusions about diamond rings broken.

Again, I fail to see the problem with this. It's a cool song and I would LOVE to hear the Elder's Quorum erupt into it.

I fail to see why being giddy over a board game is a bad thing...

Haha that may not be far wrong... I can't even imagine what bail would be set at for someone who was actually caught with a jar full of 12 human thumbs...

Well, at least now I'll have some company while I'm waiting to get bailed out.

I guess I better call Saul...

Yes! I'm holding it for my cousin!

Ummm.... err..... I don't know how they got there! They uh... they must have been in the fridge when I got it... I swear! They aren't mine!