"if someone had been able to take Hitler aside BEFORE all the horrors of WW2 and been able to convince him to lay off the genocide"

This is the pacifists dilemma though. There were numerous attempts to sway hitler from his course. Neville Chamberlain famously celebrating the Munich Agreement. At the end of the day, you can't peacefully stop someone if they are intent on causing violence.

I don't think you can really go down this road, either. It's a fun thought experiment, but it requires knowledge you only have once it's too late. You can't talk to the one kid who will grow up to be adolf hitler. There's very likely one out there now that we can't stop because we don't know them.

"At that point, violence is your only recourse to stop the atrocities."

The pacifist's dilemma and this combined, to me, put this in a morally ambiguous place. If you accept that you can't stop someone bent on violence, and nazis arrive announcing that they are, then is it better for a little violence, visited upon those who pursue violent ends? Or is it better that we wait and see the violence occur before we react to it?

On further introspection, i think both of our positions exist in a similar ambiguity - you need to know who to speak to before you know who to speak to, and i need to know who to correctively punch before i know who to correctively punch. Yours might be better for short term, worse for long term. Mine might be worse for short term, better for long term.

In truth, i probably lean more towards agreeing with you, but i'm trying to point out that even though we think "be civil" is the best option, it doesn't have any divine right to be the best option. The best option (we would probably agree) is the one that causes the least overall harm, and we don't *know* what that is, and never can. I think it's important we reconsider accepted wisdom like that. (which is really why i decided to argue it..in honesty, i probably feel the same as you; disapprove but not loudly. My main problem with the position i'm taking is - how do you *stop* the nazi punchers once the nazis are suitably punched? And when do i become the nazi?)

@transmorpher
"leaving yourself and your loved ones open to the same treatment next time someone disagrees with one of your views."

I made it very clear in earlier comments that i'm only ok with someone being punched if they are openly calling for genocide and death to people. I'm ok with you ripping that argument apart (because i think it can be.. i'm leaving myself open on purpose), but that isn't what you've done. I don't accept there's an equivalence between my harmless beliefs and a genocidal maniac's.

Worst reason ever. Anyone who has ever approached me like this, guilty or not I answer as such if only to make the person, even a random douche like this window puncher, even more mad for the sake of it simply amusing me.

How do you define "small" when it comes to narcotics? If I have a pound of cocaine, is that small? What about meth? PCP? LSD? Heroin? Narcotics are banned because they are harmful. Not just to yourself but to others. They are also addictive. Do you really think a junkie will be satiated by the small portions allowed by your proposed law? Nope. They'll always be looking for more and will do anything to get it. That's why drug-dealing is such a profitable business. A better solution is execution. If you're convicted of possession or abuse (no trial necessary if there's irrefutable evidence), you're dead. No further expenses beyond the execution (via cow puncher or some other cost-effective means) and body disposal (incineration seems most efficient). Zero chance of relapse.

As for money, sure, we could cut military funding. That would give us some money, though most of it would go towards rehabilitating criminals and paying off our numerous debts. We could increase taxes on the rich, even though they already pay the majority of taxes in the country. We could increase taxes for everyone, which we would inevitably need to do if we want top-quality education and healthcare for everyone.

As to your other points, we already have free healthcare. Well, relatively free in the form of Obamacare. We already have free education too. Public schools are free and available in almost every city. Said schools already offer sex education as well. The issue isn't really about education. Any dunce knows that having unprotected sex will result in babies. The problem is apathy. Some people just don't care. They don't think in the long-term. They don't plan ahead. They don't consider the long-term repercussions of their actions. All they care about is the here and now. It's not hard to find a condom. It's much harder to convince an apathetic and irresponsible person to actually wear it. You can tell them about the risks but if they don't think the condom is comfortable or convenient, they won't wear it. On the other hand, put a gun to their head and they'll definitely wear it.

>> ^csnel3:

I cant believe the family man ran away and let a nutcase get between him and his family! He didnt even run away from his family, as if to lure the nut away. He almost hid behind his family! The sucker puncher had to act, the nut was too close to the woman and child. Ohh Canada


It's wierd, my guess is that he isn't the family man, maybe a teenager?

I cant believe the family man ran away and let a nutcase get between him and his family! He didnt even run away from his family, as if to lure the nut away. He almost hid behind his family! The sucker puncher had to act, the nut was too close to the woman and child. Ohh Canada

Pow right in the puncher.

Fake set-up. Or, the puncher is an ass-hat looking for an excuse to punch someone. Either way fuck this video. Sorry Ant.

"One of my favorite contemporary journalists, Matt Taibbi, has done a great job examining Bachmann's candidacy in this month's Rolling Stone."



That was a great article and I agree that Taibbi is one of the best journalists working today. His pieces about the CDO fueled Wall Street implosion are among the best I've read.

Interesting quote from that article: "In modern American politics, being the right kind of ignorant and entertainingly crazy is like having a big right hand in boxing; you've always got a puncher's chance."

Maybe the puncher lives by this philosophy: http://videosift.com/video/SEALAB-2021-He-s-Out-Cold

(* shameless)

^
Oh c'mon G admit it, you're a big time cunt puncher from way back, I just know it!

On the one hand, I find this video hugely distasteful. On the other, everyone appears to be participating voluntarily and I don't see anything in this vid encouraging guys to hit women. In fact, they clearly state this is the first time they're trying this with a woman and she certainly seems willing to participate.

The guys' reaction to her being punched seems more to me to be about the absurdity and novelty of the situation (as well as the puncher's ludicrous style of punching) than about getting off on hurting specifically women. They most likely would have laughed their asses of just as hard if she had punched him in the nuts instead.

So, no upvote from me, but no downvote either on this one.

LarsaruS's link on the other hand gets the downvote for sure--I don't think the Sift should be a place where people come to laugh at clips of domestic violence (or such realistically portrayed domestic violence if it turns out that video is fake). I understand why people think that particular clip is funny (her initial reaction to the punch is pretty comical) but when you realize what just caused that reaction, if you're a decent human being anyways, a little bile rises in your throat and you downvote.

Where is Cock-Puncher when you need him...

>> ^jmzero:

Few men can kick as well as females... damn your additional space in the hip joints and extra oestrogen.

I think you have a very odd definition of the quality of a kick in martial arts. To me, something like this is what a high kick should look like. To me, "kicking well" is proportional to the speed and accuracy with which a kick can be executed, the power that can be brought to bear, and the ability to recover or transition quickly after the kick.
I'm not trying to rain on this parade really, and certainly some of what's going on there is impressive... it's just I don't understand why they're doing this as a "martial arts" thing when clearly what they're doing is gymnastics. There is nothing wrong with gymnastics (or parkour or lots of other things). And some of this stuff would be a good precursor to martial arts skills - but it's hard to think of this kind of thing as martial arts.


There are kicks and then there are kicks. If you can kick that high in slow motion and/or repeatedly like these women can, then you can kick fast and hard at those heights once. If you have that much active dynamic flexibility the sky is the limit. Just because they only showcase a portion of their skill doesn't mean that they can't kick faster, harder and better than cro cop... "Show kicks" are much harder to perform than "fight kicks" as they demand so much more from your balance and skill. In the same way that a proper cross punch demands a lot more from the puncher than a haymaker does.

There is a big difference between kicking for effect and kicking to show technique. However, if you don't have good technique you can't get good effect as you lose too much power fighting your own body.

Well, there goes my dream of Baby Punchers 'R Us.
>> ^rottenseed:

I don't get the black and white proposed when discussing law of businesses vs people. I think it's a businesses right to refuse business to anybody based on any criteria they choose. If they want to be racist that's fine, it's not illegal for an individual to do that, it shouldn't be illegal for a business to do it. I DO think that if a business is doing something illegal though, such as illegal dumping, murdering people, punching babies in the face, etc., they need to be punished. I don't think the government enforcing a law for corporations is any different than the government enforcing laws for people. I can be racist, but I can't punch a Guadalajarian maid in the knee caps. I can't dump toxic waste into the water, neither should DOW chemicals. I don't see the problem here. There's an easily distinguishable line.