Think you might like this

I got your point... and in the past you would have been correct. This video, and following replies have honestly set me straight. No getting down on anyone because of some artifical line in the sand for me after this. I'M A NEW MAN!

"Actually I'm from Canadian, but America is pretty close and let's face it, we're all pretty similar once you cut through all that bullshit!"

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^TickTock:
I love how the English guys are getting down on the Scot. It's an interesting reflection of the state of the world. Geographically, they are so close, but they seem to think they are so different. Drop all of them in downtown Shanghai or Bagdad and no one there would be able to tell them apart.
Give it up, you're all from the UK. In the other 99% of the world no one gives a shit. Move on.

Lol. What i love even more is that you're apparently not from the UK yet making an uneducated statement about the relationship between english/scottish based on jokes about the stereotypical scottish person/stereotypical english person.
Say what you like about our love/hate relationship, but we all died alongside each other protecting the Great!!! British Isles whilst the rest of the (new) world was busy turning a quick profit off the situation and waiting for the winner to be decided. They're all my brothers and sisters and whilst i may make a joke about them, and they may make a joke about me, there's no one finer, braver or tougher i'd rather trust my joint national safety to.
If i said exactly what you said about about americans/canadaians (you're american, right?), you'd bawl your eyes out!

Dear sir:
Go fuck yourself.
~Signed
A Canadian from the "new world" whose ancestors faught and died during BOTH world wars to protect your right to make generalizations about cultures outside of the British Isles.
So, just for fun, while I may not agree with TickTocks statement, Here's a neat picture showing the idiocy of comparing England/Scotland, to Canada/United States. (yes, that's Australia, UK, and U.S., but it gets the point across)
Even more perspective on that, total of area of the UK (Scotland and obviously included) = 244,820 km km/sq.
Ontario, one of canadas smaller provinces, has an area of 917,741 km/sq.
One Canadian province is larger than both your countries combined. So, no, if you said the same thing about Americans/Canadians, I'd probably laugh at you for making such a stupid comparison.

--> "If i said exactly what you said about about americans/canadaians (you're american, right?), you'd bawl your eyes out!"
--> "If i said exactly what"
--> "If i said"
--> "If"
I think that's my point proven right there! Sorry you had to get in the firing line of my insulting generalisation, but that was the point.

@Stormsinger

There are roughly 2.5 million people serving in the US military, so almost 1 in 100 people. I think most people have at least a few people in their lives who are either active duty or veterans. I can't think of anyone in my family, but I do know a few people over there and have at least one guy I see on a regular basis that is an Iraq war veteran. I have never said anything to him, but I have spent about 6 hours trying to convince one of my friends not to go into the Navy SEALs. If one of my close friends tried to enlist, I would definitely try to talk them out if it - and if my young nephew, who will be 18 in a few years thought of enlisting I would definitely do whatever I could to get him out of it. I think the most reasonable thing you could do at this point with your nephew is make sure he doesn't re-enlist after his 1st term is up.

I think it is more important to condemn the overall philosophy rather than individual people - unfortunately for this guy, when you are in a video being spread akin to a news report, you sort of become the embodiment of the philosophy outside of your individual self.

I think the line in the sand needs to be drawn somewhere, because our current culture practically worships soldiers. People would gasp, if not lynch you, if you said such things in certain groups. If there was a paradigm shift, I don't people would be so quick to enlist - especially those that are young and impressionable.

I like overcast's descriptions:

- Graphic depictions of human masturbation are not allowed.
- Graphic depictions of human sexual intercourse are not allowed.
- Frontal nudity should be limited to comedic, artistic or educational context.

And I am fully on the side of the sift being very strict with this. Yes you can have nudity (National Geographic and educational videos etc.), you can even have sex (The internal view of people having sex comes to mind), but I think it should be a case of... put forward those guidelines, but also it has to come down to a personal decision in some cases, and it's your decision is final, and if you don't like it then go to youporn.

I have no issues with porn per se, I DO have huge issues with the trend of mainstream porn at the moment to degrade women to a huge degree and completely forget the erotic side of sex. So I am completely with you on that front Dag... and, as you say, there are plenty of places to find porn on the web if you want it, so why does it need to be here? I have this site open at work, and so would rather not have to explain some thumbnail on the front page if it's open when my boss comes around.

And trying to suggest that the video in question was ok because a) It wasn't degrading, and b) It was cut such that it was supposed to be funny is missing the point. This is not about whether or not we're prudish, it's merely drawing a line in the sand as to what should go on this site, and a video of women masturbating, and showing the full act, can clearly be blocked for stepping over that line.

Honestly, it is just a name. There is no REAL thing called a planet, just arguing about lines in the sand. It is like arguing if something is warm, lukewarm, or room temperature; a realm for analytic philosophers, not scientists.

I think his views on his "role" as a black man is one of the first real steps you get towards the ideal of color blindness as apposed to color sensitivity; the ideal that MLK would see as the better of the 2.

What the fuck are you talking about? The chinaman is not the issue here, Dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, Dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

Wow, you are seriously overblowing an already overblown title.

Here's an oversimplified rendition of the steps healthcare reform will need to go through:

House:

1. Bill introduced in House (complete)
   
2. Bill referred to each House committee with jurisdiction (complete)
   
3. Bill voted on and reported by House committees (complete)
   
4. Bill opened to amendments in the full House
   
5. Bill voted on by full House
   

Senate:

1. Bill drafted by each Senate committee with jurisdiction (50% complete)
   
2. Bills voted on by Senate committees (50% complete)
   
3. Bills introduced in the Senate
   
4. Bills merged/selected from on floor of Senate
   
5. Bill opened to amendments in full Senate
   
6. Bill subjected to permanent Republican filibuster, requiring 60 votes to invoke cloture
   
7. Bill voted on by full Senate, requiring 51 votes to pass
   

Inevitably the two bills will be different, at which point you have...

Conference committee:

1. Lots of backroom arm twisting and horse trading
   
2. Conference committee reaches a compromise agreement on the bill
   
3. Bill reintroduced in House
   
4. Bill voted on in the House
   
5. Bill reintroduced in Senate
   
6. Bill subjected to permanent Republican filibuster, requiring 60 votes to invoke cloture
   
7. Bill voted on by full Senate, requiring 51 votes to pass
   

The easiest way to guarantee the public option makes it to the final bill? Make sure it's in all the bills coming out of all the committees. It's in the House bill that's cleared the committees. It's in the Senate H.E.L.P. committee bill. The Senate Finance committee seems to be stalled by Max Baucus trying really hard to see how angry he can make Democrats by trying (in vain) to get Republican support for his version of the bill.

Despite that, the latest draft still has a public option, though it's the watered-down co-op version.

Right now I'm feeling pretty good about the public option making it into the final bill, because I think if there's a strong public option in the House bill (and I'm essentially certain it will be in the House bill that goes to conference), and the two drafts entering the Senate both have a public option (one strong, one weak), chances are the conference committee bill will include a strong public option.

Democrats might still trade away the public option in some stupid pursuit of a token Republican Senate vote, but at this stage I doubt they will.

Durbin's statement sounds like he's mimicking the Obama line on the topic; he wants a public option, but won't draw a hard line in the sand about it before the negotiations have really begun. Right now we're just working on foreplay as far as the politics are concerned. The real negotiations will happen once we've found out what the Senate can pass.

>> ^burdturgler:
Actually no, ignore doesn't work .. peer pressure doesn't work .. and there have been more than a few trolls to prove it over the years. I'm not saying westy or anyone mentioned here is in that group, I'm just saying that the logic is wrong. If you look at previous trolls who were banned, they continued trolling right up till the last moment.


because they are trolls,seeking validation by fomenting ire,disgust or offense.
were they contributing?participating?
and if so,why what were they trying to accomplish by working against their own interests?
cant get very far without a bit of help here on the sift.you need votes to get anything sifted.if you constantly harrass and piss people off your votes go nowhere (might explain my expanding Pque).
a troll will be a troll because THATS what they do,thats what they always end up doing.
why?
because it validates their pathetic existence..hell ..i dont know.maybe they have a compulsory desire to be the center of attention no matter what the cost,whatever the case may be,i dont feel westy fits that profile.
so he made an off-color remark,big whoop...dont you think this giant circle jerk has sent the message to him loud and clear?
whats next?
no more homo jokes?
sexual innuendo?
boobies?
comments are funny,entertaining,sometimes informative but ALWAYS a welcome way to start a discussion.
peoples "offensive" line in the sand is different for everybody.
we cannot calibrate it,marginalize it and should not censor it.
because if we start now the sift will become the greatest collection of cute puppy/kitty videos with a smattering of olbermann and the daily show.
thats just /YAWN boooooring.
sometimes in our lives we will get offended..
its gonna happen.we say "hey man,that was fucked up" and we move on.
in the immortal words of suicidal tendencies "if i offended you,well then maybe you needed to be offended".
thats all im saying.
/rant OFF

>> ^eric3579:
Is it just me, or does the title seem a bit trollish?


imstellar28 has been practicing his emotional lash out skills; however, this better than video of Nada (sp?) being killed in Iran and him calling all Americans cowards through a twisted multi-step connection.

Imstellar, I understand that you are trying to make a point, but trying making it a little softer. You end up turn away people who would most likely be partial if not mostly allies with your overly aggressive attitude. A softer touch encourages discussion where the hard touch causes people to immediately draw lines in the sand and kills most possibilities of discussion.

^Xax:
Again with the pro-life = pro-death penalty. What bubble do you people live in? As for your question, you can't possibly be serious. If anyone needs to ask why a baby is worth saving, something is seriously broken.


Excuse me? Where did I question whether a baby is worth saving? I didn't. I was specifically asking WP his reasons because most people I have personally talked to give their reason as "life is sacred." Most of those people (again that I have personally talked to) which use this reason also support the death penalty. I find those combined positions not logically.

If you took the time, you would see that my question is directly in response to WP post. I was simply asking a question. Asking for clarification of what he thought. What can I say, I'm a curious fellow. I was curious of what grey lines in the sand he had drawn.

It's very easy to take things out of context. If you have a question, why don't you just ask for clarification? Did you honestly think I was saying a baby wasn't worth saving? I really think you were projecting your own issues on me.

So your personal objection has nothing to do with "life is sacred", but based on the perceived innocence of the child.

My personal objections are myriad, but the innocence of the child is a critically important factor to me when considering the issue of abortions.

When do you personally draw a line in the sand regarding time? Out of womb, 1 year old, 3 years old, 7 years old, etc?

Conception. If left alone, the fetus would become a living person. From the moment that potential exists, I consider the life of the innocent child to be worthy of careful, deliberate, due consideration. However, that is my opinion and I don't require others to ascribe to it and I certainly do not advocate setting political policy around it.

Pro-choice and pro-life have been the accepted labels for a while... So. just. stop.

Relax. If I use "this" or "that" (in quotes) to describe something, it's an example of highlighting terminology with a tongue in cheek pause. Typically people do this to denote the questionable nature of the highlighted phrase, not to impart validity to it.

1) Personal liberties.

In regards to the political nature of this issue, I very much concur.

I think that abortion should be legal so that the ones that do it can be done safely. I strongly disagree with 3rd trimester abortions - I think they should be illegal with the exception for the physical health of the mother. I think there need to be an honest campaign spreading sex education material (including abortion and its alternatives.)

Very similar to my views in principle.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Depends on who you ask I guess. For me, the issue is a matter of 'innocence' versus 'guilt'. An unborn child is completely innocent. It has done nothing bad or good. It is a life in potential. An INNOCENT life deserves the opportunity to live, grow, and have the chance to contribute to society.
The opposite is true of the guy on Death Row. They had a chance to show what they could do, and they squandered it. They chose to perform actions so heinous, so awful, and so damaging that they have forfieted thier right to continue to participate in civilization.


So your personal objection has nothing to do with "life is sacred", but based on the perceived innocence of the child.

I suppose this perceived innocence could be extended to other innocent life, but can I assume that your defense of life only extends to humans? When do you personally draw a line in the sand regarding time? Out of womb, 1 year old, 3 years old, 7 years old, etc?


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
My question to the "Pro-choice" or "Anti-Life" crowd is similar... What is the reason to HAVE an abortion when there are many other options available? I see abortion as the most extreme choice to be applied only in the most exigent of circumstances.


I'm actually trying to have a rational discussion with you. Please stop trying to make points like an emotional child: i.e. "Anti-life." Pro-choice and pro-life have been the accepted labels for a while. Likewise, pro-choice could label pro-life as "anti-choice", "anti-free will", "anti-american", "anti-liberties", "anti-women", etc, etc. Subversive and childlike "under the radar" name calling quickly drops a conversation into a emotional gutter. So. just. stop.

As for your question:

I can't speak for pro-choice people, only myself. As normal, I don't find myself in either camp. My view on abortion is the result of the following personal beliefs:

1) Personal liberties. I am a huge supporter that, among adults, a person should be able to do anything they want as long as doesn't harm another, non-consenting adult or their property. A great book on this subject is "Ain't Nobody's Business of You Do" by Peter McWilliams. Of course with freedom comes responsibility and accountability. The three are completely intertwined and can't exist without the others.

2) I don't know when life begins. Many have beliefs of when life begins, but those are just beliefs, not knowledge, no matter what they say. In my mind, when life begins will be a question that will never be answered satisfactory. Some people like to think about this question in potential instead. I personally don't agree with that since the baby is completely dependent on the mother. You don't even see brain activity until 12 weeks. Either way, I've resolved that I will never truly know to my satisfaction.

3) I've seen the results of a society where abortion is completely outlawed. Even if you do everything positive to decrease abortion, there will always be some. It's the equivalent of trying to stop teens from having sex. It isn't realistic. As a society, we can shoot for the ideal, but ultimately have to deal with what is realistic.


So concrete answers... I'll have to give snippets. I think that abortion should be legal so that the ones that do it can be done safely. I strongly disagree with 3rd trimester abortions - I think they should be illegal with the exception for the physical health of the mother. I think there need to be an honest campaign spreading sex education material (including abortion and its alternatives.)

I see what you mean.

I am shocked that people of faith are offended by equality, as this is the fundamental teaching of Jesus the man. Even in the UK constitution, the Magna Carta dating to 1215AD, it is written that Equality is mandatory before and after law. The highest law in the UK and the commonwealth is the Queen's bible, for the sole reason of equality.

Equality is about love and compassion. This was the message that Jesus delivered - that we are ALL the sons of God and no man can be higher than any other man. These words of truth are so powerful that they brought the entire mighty and brutal Roman Empire to its knees within 400 years.

Equality is a hard swallow. Why should a murderer or a rapist have equal human rights of an honourable and peaceful man? Well, this mindset of equality of the Christian movement kicked in the doors of power and brutality in Rome. It is extremely powerful, we have forgotten how powerful, and we have changed the message and the scriptures and blurred the edges to make it difficult to grasp.

But given further thought you start to realise that man is not capable of drawing a line in the sand and has no right to take away another man's God given natural rights. This is an ancient and fundamental truth which is the message of religious scriptures including the bible. Extend love, compassion and understanding and not judgement.

Mankind has grappled with this for 2,000 years. I grappled with it for about 20.

I wish you the very best of luck on your journey. Peace be with you.
S.




In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
The message is honourable, ethical and both assumes and promotes equality between all human beings.

The 1st two 'stanzas' are neutral but the 3rd stanza is insulting to people of faith. And Gregoire really does look like the Grinch!

Ironically, despite internecine bickering, it's religions that state all human life is equal in the eyes of God.

If you feel it is obnoxious, then you are saying that human rights and equality are offensive and highly objectionable.

Are you offended by human rights and equality QM?

I am offended by what has been done in the name of both terms.

Freedom and equality are eternal and natural enemies; too much of either causes serious trouble.

Right now "equality" is too strong and thus freedom is weak.

Political equality can be insulting and deconstructive, depending on who wields that particular scepter. Communistic equality of outcomes, equality of pay for unequal workloads and pretending that inferior methods of doing things are equal in value to a superior method are all harmful to society.

The definition of "human rights" has expanded its sphere to include the ludicrous.

I was an atheist roughly half my life and know the enormous pleasure of thinking oneself superior to people who needed a "delusional force" to survive. While I could claim possibly being happier than someone guilt-racked by fundamentalism, I could never claim I was happier than most religious people.

Neither side of the religion/atheist argument is one-dimensional. There are rational people of faith, including geniuses a-plenty, and fools for a myriad of reasons besides their being atheists.

*ban

First they make their own playlists, then before you know it they're nibbling on our brains.

Well I'm drawing a line in the sand, people. Either you're with me, or you're with a stinky undead cat.

We are through the looking glass.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
That's the same way marinegunrock escaped the charlies in 'Nam.

"I didn't watch my buddies die face down in the fucking muck so that fucking strumpets like you could make stupid fucking jokes! Are you prepared to meet your maker, DFT?"


What the fuck are you talking about? The strumpet is not the issue here. The video is talking about drawing a line in the sand. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, Gunrock, strumpet is not the preferred nomenclature. Female-American, please.