Josh F

From personal experience, trying to coordinate an animation project with strangers is extremely difficult. I volunteered to do something similar for Stef's documentary, and the entire team fell apart. The head person just disappeared and the only other animator did 3d animation while I did 2d. I highly recommend you check out this: http://videohive.net/item/meet-mikemary-whiteboard/2997841?WT.oss_phrase=draw&WT.oss_rank=2&WT.z_author=motioncraver&WT.ac=search_list Or these: http://videohive.net/item/character-promo-kit/6613057?WT.oss_phrase=promo&WT.oss_rank=4&WT.z_author=motionvids&WT.trending=trending&WT.ac=search_list http://videohive.net/item/promotion-team/7741017?WT.oss_phrase=kits&WT.oss_rank=90&WT.z_author=MonchoMasse&WT.ac=search_list It is an entire kit of pre-drawn animated characters and objects you can easy manipulate inside Adobe After Effects. It could turn your project from months of organizing people to a few days of work on your own. They're really easy to learn how to use, and After Effects works similar to most video editors. If you can't manipulate these drawings, how do you plan to contribute to an animation?

Right, I'm sure we could find a bunch of examples. Even as far back as Rome, the Christians were rioting and looting because they were severely abused by the state, yet overtime Rome became Christian.

There have been some authors who tackle the subject, but its largely ignored in the popular version of the end of the Vietnam War. I think it works like this: if the violence threatens the state's power then it reacts. So for example, if I, right now, began as an individual to riot and loot in this small and quiet town I live in, I don't think it would threaten the state's ability to enforce law and nothing would come of it. However, if 10% of this town began looting and 20% began protesting, they'd be threatened. If a soldier kills himself to avoid combat, or deserts like that guy in Afghanistan recently, it doesn't threaten the state. If they killing officers, it does. So it isn't just violence, but violence which disrupts the state's authority.

I think its interesting to ponder. I once read it took the British hundreds of years to conquer Scotland and Ireland because the people had a decentralized authority, even though they had a small population. Whereas the British were able to conquer India far quicker.

Oh if Hell was true too I'd be screwed, cause he'd see right through my pretending to worship him to avoid hell thing. hahaha

There is no doubt that is for PR. As for it coming faster, its a bit impossible to say that without public outcry the change would have happened at all. Would the Civil Rights movement have peacefully ended Jim Crow without the violent protesters? MLK didn't seem to think so, nor did many other people in the movement. Did protests end the Vietnam war as some baby boomers like to think, or was it because the soldiers were refusing the fight and fragging their officers? Additionally, this measure is proof positive of police abuses, considering reports of abuse drop significantly when cops are forced to wear cameras. This doesn't proof Wilson was abusing his power, but it does prove that the rioters and protestors are justified in their assessment that the police are abusive.

Police abuses, in the case of Ferguson and Los Angeles. There are those lunatics who go crazy after sporting events, that I'll never understand. Also I don't know if looters 'seek to remedy' anything, I doubt that the individuals actors are particularly principled. Its just an outburst of rage in response to something, throughout a city. Its clearly in response to police abuses, though. And as the article suggests, it might result in some very positive changes if 50,000 more police are going to be strapped with a body camera. Statistics show that when cops have cameras, police abuses drop significantly.

Like I said, I might have blurred it with Men's Rights Groups, which do lobby I mean many of those groups have expressed goals of changing custody laws and divorce laws, which would require lobbying to be successful. Compared to the massive, entrenched, feminist lobby's like NOW it isn't even close, you're right.

I thought about the "the police stand by and allow looting" arguments. As I explained, I'm from LA, and they said similar things regarding the Rodney King Riots. I don't really have an explanation, or know if its true, and if it is true what the reasoning is... but I'll keep that argument on tap. I think one reason might be that the police are severely undermanned, 20 potentially armed looters would make for an extreme shootout. Another is that there are often innocents around. And lastly, that more police violence would only prompt further looting in the aggregate. But I don't really know. Regarding your later point, absolutely. I've heard people say that government abuse only extends as far as people will tolerate. Yes, very fair. "Looting is an effective way to accomplish political change." Yeah, its analogous to the old wisdom of dealing with a bully.

Well, firstly the Whiskey Rebellion was after the Boston Tea Party. Secondly, the Whiskey Taxes were repealed by Jefferson after the rebellion was squashed. Federalists also changed. They no longer challenged the freedom of assembly and the right to petition. Similarly, the government is trying to stop looting in Ferguson and does and will prosecute the looters, but the above article demonstrates that the government also knows it needs to make some concessions. Looting, far more than peaceful protests, procures change. I don't understand what this has to do with my post? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get the impression you read what I wrote. EDIT: ahh I just realized I think you misread the title as Peaceful Parenting and not Peaceful Protests.

Occupy Wallstreet and the Tea Party have resulted in no positive reformation to either wallstreet or the federal reserve. However, in light of Ferguson, Barack Obama is calling for a $263 million spending package to reform police departments across the country and ensure 50,000 more officers wear body cameras. The History of looting in the United States is heavily correlated with positive reformation. Martin Luther King himself wrote a letter from prison, explaining that his ability to negotiate the end of Jim Crow and segregation was because of the looming and present threat of the violent wing of black protests. The initiation of America itself began with an act of looting, called the Boston Tea Party, in which the private property of British exporters was destroyed by a group of colonists dressed as natives. This is not a moral argument, certainly, but a pragmatic one. Nonetheless, a well deserved addendum to the discussion of looting. I grew up in Los Angeles, and after the Rodney King riots Los Angeles underwent epic changes. The neighborhoods that Dr. Dre raps about are no longer than violent ghettos he depicted. Other police departments like Rampart were revealed for their corruption. Laws and training were put into place to reduce police racism. So, the question isn't is looting moral or immoral. The question for debate here is: does looting work?

For me, personally, even if God himself came to earth and proved beyond a reasonable doubt his existence, I still wouldn't worship the entity.

ah okay perhaps I incorrectly blurred MGTOW with the MRM and Men's Rights Groups.

Your definition of Capital is pretty interesting. I'm mulling it over. I'm wondering if there are means to an end which wouldn't qualify as capital. Also spiritual capital is more often called Human Capital, I don't know if that distinction is necessary. Why is work ethic human capital but empathy is spiritual capital? Knowledge is human capital, but mastery is spiritual capital? Seems like one category instead of two, imo. I would consider another category for Capital as Coercive Capital or Political Capital. In this category would be things like carbon credits or national debt, artificial capital constructs created through state violence. This kind of stuff is really big in "green" circles, who seek to assign by force value to things which otherwise have no value like a coal company planting some trees in a forrest.

It is not a prenuptual agreement. It is a contract not bound by law, but by code. Its a replacement for lawful nuptuals, not an addendum. So what I mean is that instead of getting married by the government, a couple can use this technology to create a binding contractual arrangement based on their own personal (idiosyncratic) needs. They can set their friends are arbitrators, and delineate how at least some assets are divided, the conditions for divorce, etc. MGTOW is quite political, as it includes groups like A Voice for Men and others. Not unlike feminism, its public face is often blogs and videos and all that debating and making philosophical arguments. However, the goal of many of these groups includes activism, lobbying, changing laws, etc. While its message is better, imo, than feminism its structure is similar. http://www.avoiceformen.com, check out the section called Activism for just a small set of examples. Personally, I signed up for a few different groups and channels and all that. I tried to get into it, but its not for me for these reasons. Though I will say, I did start a topic in a large facebook group for MRMs about not using the state but finding alternatives within the market to combat injustices towards men and I got a great response from a lot of the other people. We talked about projects like setting up scientific contests similar to things like SpaceX to promote the male pill, which was received pretty well though none of the people I talked to, including me, really had the expertise to do something like that. So it isn't hopeless, I think this criticism is in time and I'm not the only one making it.