Even if viewed from that angle, Hamas' actions have only worsened their own situation. When they won the election in 2006, they were given the opportunity to accept Israel's conditions in return for aid and support. They refused. Were Israel's sanctions justified? Maybe, maybe not. But Gaza would most certainly be better off simply accepting them. The alternative is what we have now.

There comes a point where you just need to swallow your pride and accept defeat. Hamas is never going to win a war against Israel. Their continued efforts have achieved nothing but the destruction of their own country and the people within. Politics and religion are not worth the death toll.

Now, someone is inevitably going to rant about sovereignty and freedom and all that. Tell me... should Germany have continued fighting after the fall of Berlin? Should Japan have continued fighting after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Should Native Americans be launching rockets and bombing government buildings? No. You accept defeat and start taking the road to recovery.

Is this real? How can anyone not understand how to use a modern gas pump?

This seems... fake. The likelihood of you not recognizing your own mother (even if she's wearing a wig and sunglasses) is pretty low.

The idea is that sex should only be used for reproduction and not for fun. As such, if you're going to have sex, you shouldn't wear protection (as that would undermine your reproductive potential) and if you do get pregnant, you should keep the pregnancy because getting pregnant is the whole point of sex.

How am I taking this argument too far? History has shown that taking nude pics of yourself and sending them to others is risky. How many leaks have there been that have caused humiliation or worse yet, ruined careers? Plenty. Comparisons to online banking, leaving your house, talking to people, etc, are ludicrous because those are things you need to do to function in modern society. You absolutely do not need to take or send nude pictures of yourself. It's a completely unnecessary risk that has bitten many people in the ass. Do you have the right to do it? Of course, but that doesn't make it a smart thing to do.

We're part of the problem because we believe that people should take precautions and avoid unnecessary risks? Make no mistake, it's awful that someone stole her pictures and distributed them on the web. She's definitely the victim here. Nobody is arguing otherwise. However, making angry videos chastising the people who perpetrated these crimes is a waste of time. They knew exactly what they were doing and most certainly don't feel any remorse. Explaining the psychological impact of leaked nude pictures isn't going to convert those people into saints.

There are a lot of assholes in the world who don't care about your feelings or your rights. You should take that into account with every choice you make, such as taking nude pictures of yourself and sharing them with others on the internet. People take precautions all the time. You lock your doors, you look both ways before crossing the street, you don't carry too much cash at any given time, you stay out of dark alleys, you wear warm clothing in cold weather, you cover the seats of public toilets before using them, you wash your hands after using toilets, you get flu shots, etc. Using the internet should be treated no differently. Teaching people that sobering fact is going to be way more productive than trying to turn assholes into good people.

Again, this isn't about rights or principles. It's about reality. We live a world where many people don't care about your rights or the law. If you give them the opportunity, these people will exploit you. If you don't want to be exploited, you need to avoid creating such opportunities whenever it is practical to do so. Ideally, we wouldn't have to do this. Ideally, everyone would share the same principles and values and we would all coexist in harmony. But that's not the world we live in.

Also, your analogies are pretty silly. Sending nude pics of yourself to someone is in no way comparable to using online banking. Banks have exponentially more security than whatever messaging or e-mail service you're using to send pictures, not to mention that the person receiving the pics can do whatever they want with them.

Hate to be that guy but if you send someone nude pictures of yourself, you're taking a significant risk. Even if you trust that person, digital media is inherently insecure. This isn't a matter of rights or principles. The people who steal and leak such things don't care about either of those. It's a matter of common sense.

The problem with expecting apathetic people to vote is that they would just toe the party line. Hell, people toe the line even when they do care. What really needs to happen is the banishment of the party system. Force voters to actually think about the candidates rather than automatically voting Democrat or Republican. That way, the people who do care enough to vote will actually do some research and put some real thought into who they're supporting.

@enoch

I'm not arguing that American laws are entirely reasonable. I'm simply arguing that, given America's significantly higher violent crime rates, American prisons have a much higher percentage of violent criminals than Norway's prisons. These criminals would love Norway's prisons and would be perfectly fine living in them.

The U.S. and Norway are very different countries with very different cultures, economic situations and crime rates. What works for Norway won't necessarily work for the U.S. One statistic I'd love to know is the recidivism rate for non-violent criminals in the U.S. I imagine it's significantly lower than the recidivism rate for violent criminals.

How many of those people were actually homeless? I'm pretty sure I saw a bunch of well-off people simply there for free food.

How many violent criminals are in Norway's prisons? According to TYT, the U.S. has almost 10 times as many homicides as Norway, so I think it's safe to assume that U.S. prisons hold a much higher percentage of violent criminals. Coincidentally, violent criminals are far more likely to be repeat offenders.

Poverty is another factor to consider. Poverty and crime are directly correlated. Many people commit crimes out of desperation. After being released from prison, their situation doesn't change. Regardless of your skills, finding a job as an ex-convict isn't easy (hell, finding a job as regular citizen isn't easy these days) and the likelihood of getting one that actually pays more than minimum wage is pretty low. If "freedom" means living in a shithole apartment and barely surviving by doing tedious, demeaning and low-paying work (or even taking multiple jobs), is incarceration really any worse? You'll still be doing tedious work but you won't have to worry about paying for rent, water, electricity, food, gas, healthcare, insurance, etc.

So, what would happen if we made American prisons as nice and cushy as the ones in Norway? Would crime actually decrease? Or would criminals simply see prison as a mild slap on the wrist? Or even a step up from their current situations? If our current prisons aren't scary enough to deter people from breaking the law, would a spa-like prison be any more effective? Hell, there are already recorded cases of people intentionally getting arrested in the U.S. so they can go to prison and not have to worry about living on the street. If our prisons were as nice as Norway's, these cases would only become more common.

People like to focus exclusively on recidivism rates but those aren't the only statistics that matter. And if you really only care about recidivism, you should be all for the dealth penalty. After all, death row prisoners have a 0% recidivism rate.

Why would you ever sit/stand next to the track in a rally race? Or any car race, for that matter? Seems like you're just asking to get hit.

Maher makes a good point. Liberals won't hesitate to shit all over Christianity but if you dare criticize Islam, you might as well be a Nazi, even though Islam is objectively more conservative than Christianity.

But then, hypocrisy is common amongst most liberals. They call for an end to the War on Drugs because of its lack of efficacy but then call for a War on Guns because apparently that would somehow be more effective..? Drugs, alcohol and tobacco cause far more death and suffering than guns but you'd be hard-pressed to find any liberal who would support banning them.