GripGambler

Really? If he goes 31-4 you would call for his retirement? Man, fans are way too retirement trigger happy these days.

And screw over their new managers who would then have to come out of pocket for their training before they take their next fight, when they have already earned money for training? Nope. Keep up the attitude you are showing in this thread and you will be taking a vacation from the forums.

Most FAs are stripped of their funds to $3000 upon becoming FA, and managers can only drop fighters to make room for FAs every 15 days (30 for non VIP). How much more regulation do you want? As long as there are FAs with money, it is going to happen, regardless of how much "regulation" is implemented.

You just described yourself as a virtue ethicist, which is what the vast majority of atheists claim as well. I think you read into points on morality incorrectly and get stuck on the vocabulary rather than the meaning behind the claims.

It doesn't matter how it would change us, whether it would be better for everyone or not, or what you want the situation to be. None of these point to it actually being the case. Just because you want it to be so, and think it would be better if it were so, does not make it so. Your argument went from a logical conclusion that a guiding force must exist based on no other explanation of a circumstance, to it sounding like a better situation to be in so I'll believe it is so.

So a "guiding power" can dictate right and wrong, but a group of people can't? How does that even make sense? Every culture dictates their own standards for what is right and what is wrong. You say behaviors don't have real values, but that is like saying that x doesn't have a value. However, once you put x into an equation, such as 3x+2=8, it suddenly does have a value. Consider the equation a culture, and x the behavior. Place behaviors in different cultures, and you get a different value for it, just like placing x in a different equation gives it a different value. Sometimes x will end up having the same value, sometimes it will have a wildly different value. Did a "guiding power" decide that x=2 in my equation? No, the other elements within the equation did.

They are all learned behaviors and reactions by growing up in certain cultures and areas. You are asking science to explain to you why another person thinks that you should take a certain action. It's very simple, they have developed a certain mindset through their culture and experience, and feel that it is the proper way to go about life as it is what they have found makes the biggest positive difference in their lives, so they feel others should take the same course of action to achieve the same outcome. This is flawed thinking, but the answer to your question I believe, nonetheless. If you are asking why science thinks that you should act a certain way, well, it doesn't and never has claimed to. Science studies, learns, and attempts to explain, it doesn't attempt to dictate the proper lifestyle for a person.

Please, learn the difference between scientific theories and philosophical theories before you make any additional comments like this. They aren't what you think they are. http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory The comparison of theory to scientific theory is often the biggest misconception people have when science is brought up in religious debates. Scientific theories are not just conclusions a person came to after considering a few factors, then writing it down and calling it theory. Scientific theory is deemed theory after decades, and possibly centuries of the scientific method has been applied to a hypothesis, after constant result reproduction, and has not been legitimately refuted. Because of this, scientific theories are hardly ever replaced by other theories. More confusion comes in when people use the word theory to describe a scientific topic that has not actually been deemed a theory by the scientific community. This is also not to be confused with a theorem, which is something that is mathematically provable. A key principal behind a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable, due to the nature of it occurring through experimentation, and not mathematical formula.

Err, most of this is incorrect, but instead of pointing everything out, I will direct your attention to Darwin's finches and let you draw your own conclusion.

I personally don't feel that anyone is truly agnostic without being theist or atheist. Every person that I have talked to in person who has claimed to be agnostic will actually hold the position of one or the other while claiming they can't say for certain. Generally claiming agnosticism is due to not really understanding atheism, or trying to come off as more passivist in a crowd. Holding an agnostic viewpoint does not keep you from being either theist or atheist. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in a deity. Meaning, if you don't BELIEVE a deity exists, then you are atheist. Atheism DOES NOT mean that you are vehemently opposed to a deity existing. If you claim uncertainty, which many atheists do, then you are simply an agnostic atheist. What most people don't understand about atheism is that the only thing similar from one atheist to another is that they have a lack of belief in a god(s), just as all religions have theism in common. Many atheists have different views or "beliefs" on various subjects and they should not be lumped together under one thought process. I challenge everyone who claims agnosticism to truly ask yourself if you BELIEVE in a deity or not. Not whether or not you think there is a possibility one could exist, just if you actually believe that one does. If you DO believe a deity exists, then you are theist. If you lack that belief, you are atheist. The decision to be agnostic comes after the fact, labeling you either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

These thoughts are ignorant to what it means to be atheist. Plenty of atheists are agnostic atheists, in that they take the position that there is no god due to a lack of any evidence of one, however they will never deny the possibility of one existing as a true atheist and scientifically minded person is never 100% sure of anything, but is always on a mission to become as close to 100% as they can. This is the vast majority of atheists, and generally those you never hear of because the extremists are too loud.

Oh, they made threads bashing religion? Weird... Last time I watched anything on Richard Dawkins he was participating in intellectual debates in an attempt to change future views and education. This = childishly bashing people of another belief? Weird...

lolwut? There are extremists on both sides. Making threads bashing one side is childish.

http://goo.gl/LIgZT

For prosecution, the *statute* of limitations is generally 3 years for a misdemeanor and 6 years for a felony. Misdemeanors vary slightly state to state, and the statute of limitations doesn't apply to heinous, military, international, or lying under oath cases. This time limit is only for setting the first court or hearing date, and the date can be outside the time limit as long as it was set within it.

Fixed... I'm pretty sure they're all flavor text, with no hidden meanings. Just my opinion though.

I didn't read the thread, so sorry if I'm topic, but micromanagement is an intended part of the game. It is the part that rewards players who play more often than people who play less.

While neat, IMO the last thing we need on this forum is incentive for more post whoring. PS... where is my sparkly purple belt?!?

? I'm not a cop, nor am I a chat room mod.

Remember, you pulled that card first. The fact that the "insider knowledge" that you cited was a few officers in a social situation is plenty information for me to know that my statements were correct. The fact that you can claim "the few times that I've had to encounter cops" shows how little experience (sample size) you actually have with LE, with everything else that you have cited being word of mouth, so please, don't act like you have anything more credible. Please, try to find actual research to back up the fact that abuse is common and not rare. If it were true, the research would have been completed easily and been published through hundreds of media outlets throughout America, as they eat that kind of info up. It shouldn't be hard to find, if it exists.

They are. I'm not talking about a cop speeding without his lights on, or parking some place he shouldn't. I'm talking about abusing their authority in situations which cause direct unwarranted harm to another. Call it ignorant all you want, but I guarantee I know more officers than you do, have spent more time around officers than you have, have probably worked directly with more officers than you will ever meet, and have plenty of first hand experience to back up my claims.

lol @ people who use abuse cases which are extremely rare compared to the number of police in force in the country as a reason to "hate cops". Stop watching so many police dramas on TV and assuming the media accounts for the majority. There are bad apples in every profession, but using a blanket statement because of a few of those bad apples is really tragic given how many thousands of people dedicate their lives as officers of the law, putting their lives in danger every day of the week so that average citizens can have additional everyday security. Sure some of the laws that they enforce upset people, but do realize that it is their job to enforce the laws not change them. It is YOUR job to change the laws. Abuse cases should not be taken lightly, but they are the exception by leaps and bounds, not the rule. Also, to those acting like US cops are so much worse than in other countries, it is definitely not limited to the US. If anything, the US media are just more apt to report on abuse and make a big deal about it, which is arguably better than the alternative. As far as the specific video, I think it definitely could have been handled differently, however there are some circumstances that are unknown to us and from the way it looked it should be little more than a strong talking to. Take the situation into account. The police officers were called in to a violent offense in action, they arrive and it is still happening. When they approach, one of the suspects gets up and begins to walk away. The cop(s) would have told her to stop, and when she didn't, at this point she is effectively running (albeit walking in this case) away from a violent encounter and from the police officers giving her orders. The officers had no backstory, they showed up to a fight. They had no idea if it was a family matter, a robbery, a possible assault with a deadly weapon, a gang fight, etc etc.. They have no idea if there are weapons that could put their own lives in danger. When the woman walks away from this situation and disobeys orders, this gives the officer reasonable cause to use force to subdue the suspect. Also in this case, as the officer approached her, she began turning with an object in her hand. In the heat of the moment, the officer has to look out for their own safety first, and worry about the safety of the suspect second (given that they were in a violent engagement and disobeying orders). Another observation/assumption is that it looked like the officer was attempting to pin her to the wall, not knock her to the ground, as is evident by his stumble afterwards and look of temporary confusion.

Yes, please report all multi suspicions to any forum mod. It is OK if you want to make a forum topic about it, though not really recommended, just send it to a mod also or use the "report a post" feature on the topic you made so that a mod sees it. It looks like this one has been taken care of, so I'm closing this topic. Thanks for the report.

My point was that the opponent wasn't really at much, if any of a disadvantage. He wasn't outgunned and just happened to "get lucky" by landing the sub. You can technically consider anything with any amount of randomness involved "lucky", but that isn't how it is used colloquially. After a point it is really just nitpicking semantics.

It wasn't luck, your guy just isn't that much better (if at all) on the ground, lol.