And how do you think the government would get the money to pay for this information? Don't give them the justification that its unjust because we're not paid for the information they acquire. Its unjust because its a violation the 4th amendment.

@Jaer not sure why you think morality is not involved in the law. The laws, the courts and the police agents are there to serve justice (IIRC).

via Wikipedia:
'Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity or fairness'

Also, you make the argument from a point of convenience but several of these people are willing to bear the inconvenience to make their point. Non-compliance is a form of activism and the fact that they are all let go without answering the questions or submitting to searches shows that the DHS agents understand that what they are requesting is actually outside the bounds of our rights as they are generally interpreted. They are simply seeking compliance.

Which brings me to my final point. My German girlfriend overheard the video and then came to sit by me and watch it. She was fascinated with the video and at the end, she commented on the several references to Nazi Germany.

'Americans don't really know anything. That's not like Nazi Germany, it's like East Germany. The only difference is the Stazi got results and nobody dared to resist their constant intrusions so directly.'

She should know, since she lived there until the wall came down. Non-compliance against an unjust act/request is a moral duty. Damn your convenience.

Cite one contemporary example where what I describe (all of it, not just parts) has been attempted.

There are plenty of examples of unjust and tyrannical brutality. I can't think of any where the brutality was fair, consistent and logical. That's what you don't seem to be grasping here. Genocide or religious/political persecution are not comparable to what I propose.

We live in the safest period of history not because of liberalization or decreasing barbarism but because technology has made it much easier to enforce the law and maintain order. If you try to rob a bank, you'll be caught on camera and the cops will have you surrounded in minutes thanks to silent alarms. If you try to rape someone in the street, bystanders can whip out their phones, capture your face on camera and then call the cops. If you steal a car and try to speed off, you'll never get away from the police cars at every corner and helicopter in the air. Never before has it been so easy to defend yourself, get help or capture proof of a crime. It's no coincidence that the vast majority of crime occurs in poor areas with minimal surveillance and police presence. It was thanks to technology that the two Steubenville rapists were caught and successfully persecuted.

I think that's like saying bosses have no responsibility to treat their subordinates in a human manner.

In the real world, it's in bosses' best interest to build a good company culture that makes their employees happy. It costs nothing, and it saves a lot of money because employees behave better and don't quit as frequently. In my work, that's what I do with the employees who report to me, and that's what I hope those to whom I report do for me.


I largely agree with you. I'm all for much more severe punishment of actual scumbags, like is done in Singapore and the Middle East, which tend to be low crime as a result. But this woman seems just disorganized and unlucky, not sociopathic.

It's not in our best interest to convince her that society will treat her unjustly whenever it gets the chance.

Jesus loves you and I love you. This is an extremely long post and I apologize. I am writing for anyone who is interested in critically examining the arguments Sam Harris makes and contrasting it to the actual truth as presented by the scripture. Sam has distorted this truth and the entire video is basically one long strawman argument.. I think that is you are going to utterly condemn something you should at least make a cursory effort to understand it. That's just me. I invite you guys to learn more about the scripture so that you can know the truth for yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310246040/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360718403&sr=1-2&keywords=how+to+understand+the+bible

I'll answer some points..

Sam: The point of Christianity is to safeguard the eternal well being of eternal souls

You could perhaps categorize this as the main point, but there are many points to Christianity. I don't want to split hairs here; I am agreeing with Sam essentially but I just want to expand on it a bit. The main point of Christianity is to declare the gospel of Jesus Christ. That's what Jesus said when He began His ministry: "repent and believe the gospel". The gospel is that Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, came to Earth to live as one of us. Though He did not sin, He took all of our sins upon Himself on the cross so that we could be forgiven and have eternal life. The point of Christianity is Jesus, and having a personal relationship with Him. Everyone who comes to know Jesus will be born again and become a new person. There are many other points to this but I will stop here.

Sam: 9 million children die every year

Yes, this is true but most of these children, if not all of them, will be going to Heaven. Not one of them have been forgotten by God or will suffer an unjust fate. There is an age of accountability for every person, and it is different for every person. It all depends on the revelation God has given each particular person and their response to it. It is fairly certain though that most if not all children under the age of 12 will make it to Heaven automatically.

Sam in discussing the dying children brings up the problem of evil..which has been sufficiently answered by Plantigas free will defense:

http://videosift.com/video/Since-Evil-Suffering-Exist-A-Loving-God-Cannot

Sam mentions the grief of the parents and that their unanswered prayers are part of Gods plan..

First of all, God answers every prayer, He just doesn't always answer yes. An example of a prayer God answered no to was when Jesus was in the garden of gethsemane and was asking the Father to let Him bypass the cross. Though it surely grieved His heart, He answered no to that prayer. He answered no because He was esteeming us more than Himself, which is what sacrificial love looks like. A key part of the prayer of Jesus was "never the less, not my will, but your will".

Christians do not pray to the exclusion of Gods will. we don't necessarily know what is best for us, but we trust God that He knows, and so we always pray that His will be done, even above what may seem needful for me at that time.

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

I will also address the grief. The fact of the matter is, the scripture makes it very clear that Christians will suffer grief and loss on a constant basis:

Matthew 24:9

Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.

1 Peter 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you:

1 Peter 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

Look at Pauls testimony:

1 Corinthians 11:24-28

Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.

Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.

Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea,

I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.

I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.

Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.

If you read Foxes Book of the Martyrs (http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html) you will see that Christians are no strangers to suffering and grief. It is clearly taught in His word it will happen, which makes this argument have no weight at all and is simply a strawman.

Sam said that any God who would allow pain either can do nothing or doesnt care to so He is either impotent or evil

This is simply a false dichotomy. God may allow pain for a good reason, which is for the greater good. I'll give you an example:

This is Nick Vujicic, a man with no arms and no legs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXlCeKBWfaA

He is a motivational speaker and he has traveled around the world and inspired millions. Pretty much anyone who has a problem can relate to this man because Nick has overcome his extreme adversity with grace and he finds joy in his daily life. If God had answered Nicks prayer to be healed, then millions of people would have been robbed of the fruit that overcoming his adversity bore in his life. This is an example of how God can use pain for a greater good.

Sam asks what about all those who are praying to the wrong God, through no fault of their own..that they missed the revelation

This is just simply false..Sam seems to think that there are no reasonable answer to these questions when the real problem is his ignorance of Christian theology.

Romans 1:18-21

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

The word of God states that every man coming into the world is given light, and that God makes it clear to them one way or the other that He exists. Every man, woman and child dying after the age of accountability and heading towards hell had received a personal revelation from God as to His existence. How they responded to that light determined what Gods next move was. If they had responded in the affirmitive, He could have then opened the door for them to know Jesus and be saved. Since they responded in the negative, they did not receive any further revelation and died in their sins.

So again Sam creates a strawman argument when he says that they missed the revelation through no fault of their own. The truth is that they received the revelation and rejected it. He also made it sound like people are just randomly born into the world when what the scripture says is that God appoints the times and places for every human being. There are no accidents about where you are born; it is simply that God is not limited by time and space. He is omnipresent and not limited to any particular locality.

Sam accused God creating the cultural isolation of the hindus - of orchaestrating their ignorance

The truth is that in the beginning all men knew God and that over time as men formed nations they moved farther and farther away from the truth about God and invented their own gods to worship. The hindus isolated themselves, though again this is not a limitation on God. He has reached out to every hindu who has ever lived and the ones who ended up in hell are the ones who rejected Him. You have to push past the love, grace and mercy of God to get to hell.

Sam mentions how a serial killer could get saved while an innocent perishes elsewhere:

What the bible says is this:

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

There aren't any innocents over the age of accountability. The man who has cheated on his wife is equally guilty in Gods eyes as the man who murdered his wife. What God calls good is not a relative standard like human beings use, as we compare ourselves to eachother and think we are good people because we haven't done the big two (rape, murder). What God calls good is moral perfection and what He calls evil is everything that falls short of that, even one sin. He also says that if you hate someone you have murdered them in your heart and you are a murderer at heart. Sam does not appear to understand what the bible says Gods standards actually are.

Sam said that there is absolutely nothing in Christianity to do with moral accountability

Again, this is false. What the bible says is that we're morally accountable to God for every sin we've ever committed, and your conscience will tell you that. It is not other people we have offended, it is God Almighty. What Sam seems to have a problem with is Gods absolute standard for moral accountability versus his relative standard (which conveniently excuses his sins against God)

Sam said there is a conflict between God being intrinsically good and what he describes as the "visitation of cruel unjust suffering on innocent people"

I've already answered this by point out there are no innocent people over the age of accountability. I would also like to add that God created a perfect world, and the reason there is sin in this world is because of mankind. The reason the world is the way it is today is exclusively because of the daily crimes of humanity (can you even begin to imagine the amount of evil that transpires on planet earth in one day?) and not because God wanted it that way.

Sam says it is a cop out to say God is mysterious and then use merely human understanding to establish goodness

Actually, what Sam has done here is create a distorted image of God by twisting or ignoring what the scripture says about Him, and the fate of human beings. Then he points to this grotesque image to condemn the true and living God who is in fact perfectly good. The truth is that His goodness is upheld entirely when you are looking at the true God through a sound understanding of scripture and not the distorted image Sam has created of Him.

Sam says its a cop out to be told God is mysterious to justify untold suffering

He is right here, it is a cop-out..and anyone making such an argument has a weak understanding of the bible. Gods will for us is actually no mystery; God makes it crystal clear what He expects from His creation, and kinds of things we will face. He is even gracious enough to tell us what will happen in the future, thousands of years in advance:

http://www.christadelphianals.org/bible_prophecy.htm

Sam says it is utter hubris and even reprehensible to think you're special because "God loves me don't you know"

Yet even little children understand that no one is worthy to be pardoned for their sins and no one can make it into Heaven on their own. There is absolutely no difference between me and anyone else except for one thing; I said yes to God, and some others say no. I am not worthy, in fact I am decidedly unworthy and I deserve the exact same punishment as everyone else does; the difference is that I accept the free gift of grace that Jesus offers upon the cross. God proved His love for all people on the cross, and He died for every single person, not just me. Jesus loves you more than you can understand.

Sam says it is morally reprehensible for Christians to drudge up some trivial circumstance God took care of while completely ignoring the suffering of other human beings

Sam is right about this and it is a complete shame to Christians everywhere that the western church is so materialistic and base in their feelings. Jesus called us to live a life of total sacrifice and to give up everything we have. I can tell you that God is even more appalled than Sam is about this issue.

Sam asserted that the bible supports slavery

This is false; the bible does not support slavery. Slavery as we understand it today is not the same as it was in the time this was written. In those times it was more of a profession and people would sell themselves into slavery so they could have food and shelter. The bible regulated these activities, but it also said that there was no difference between master and slave and that we are all equal in Christ Jesus. I will also point out that modern slavery was ended by Christians.

Sam says that the bible admonishes us to kill people for witchcraft

No, it does not admonish Christians to kill witches, or anyone else. There is no commandment for any Christians to murder anyone. It is true, however, that in the time of the Old Covenant, God set up laws for Israel which were very strictly enforced with the punishment of death. This was not anything that He ever imposed on the world, or any other people except the Jews. He also did not impose it on them: the Jews made a covenant with God to obey all of His laws, so that He would be their God, and they would be His people.

Sam says that there is absolutely nothing anyone can say against Muslims if they prayed to the right God

The God of the bible is not morally inconsistant, whereas the god of the muslims is.

Sam said Christianity is what only lunatics could believe on their own

The bible says this:

1 Corinthians 1:18

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The scripture itself says that unsaved people will find the message of the cross foolish. This is the evidence that you are perishing. The things of the Spirit of God are foolish to the natural man, neither can he understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Sam made a little quip about catholicism

While I am sure there are saved catholics, the church itself departed from the true teachings of Jesus a long time ago.. There is also no teaching in the scripture regarding the Eucharist.

Sam said its very strange salvation depends bad evidence

God gives everyone good evidence that He exists but they suppress the truth. God reveals Himself through personal revelation. You cannot know God otherwise.

Sam says Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice

Jesus wasn't sacrificed against His will:

John 10:18

No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded."

He gave His life just as firemen have given their lives trying to save people from a burning building. Jesus didn't have to go to the cross but He did it out of love for us:

John 15:13

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Sam says the bible doesnt repudiate human sacrifice, that it celebrates it

Actually, it does repudiate it in many locations. The practice of sacrificing humans was utterly condemned in scripture. Jesus voluntarily giving Himself for the sins of the world does not resemble what Sam is implying even superficially.

Sam states that people used to bury children under the foundation of buildings and then says "these are the sorts of people who wrote the bible"

The kind of people who wrote the bible were eye witnesses to the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They did not bury children under foundations; they followed the true and living God.

Sam said that if there is a less moral moral framework he hadn't heard of it

As he has presented it, most certainly, but the problem is that he largely invented it from his misunderstanding of Christian theology and personal prejudices.

The true question is this: are you an honest or dishonest skeptic? If you're an honest skeptic you will investigate, but a dishonest skeptic doesn't want to know. You will have to admit that you do not know whether God answers prayer or not, so here is a possible clue to knowledge:

Pray this: God, I don't know if you're there or not, and I don't know if the bible is your word or not. I am asking you to reveal the truth to me, and if you do, I promise to follow it where ever it leads. If it leads to Jesus, I will give my life to Him and follow Him.

After praying this, read the gospel of John. Read it slowly, a little at a time, each time beforehand praying that God will give you revelation concerning what you're reading. If you do this, by the time you reach the end of the gospel your skepticism will have grown wings and flown away.

God bless.

[["atheists kinda sorta make a claim of some sort. What's your point."]]

To me it's kind of a minor point but for this it comes down to the burden of proof, which is something atheists are trying to avoid at all costs.

[["And if you think that the atheist experience simply trawls the bottom of Christian intellectualism then who would you have them debate, Ray comfort? Matt Slick? Perhaps you?"]]

How about Ravi Zacharias? John Lennox? Matt Dillahunty has actually formally debated a few Christians and he didn't do very well.

[["More than anything, the most disgusting trait of Christianity is that it equates child rapists and children as equally sinful in the eyes of God. There are certainly various arguments saying that different consequences will be felt here on earth, or perhaps that there is an arbitrary age of innocence, etc... But almost universally, Christians agree that the following scenario is at least possible:"]]

What the scripture says is that we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Further, it says that the wages of our sin is death. Therefore, it is saying that we all have a sin problem, and that God doesn't show any partiality between sinners. The murderer and the liar are both headed for hell, although there is an indication in the scripture that there are degrees of punishment in hell. I also believe in the age of accountability.

Is it possible that the murderer may go to heaven while the murder victim goes to hell? It certainly is. What you're not realizing is, God loved both equally, and had His hand out to both equally. He doesn't show partiality in punishment, and He doesn't show partiality in salvation. He did everything possible to save the one that perished without violating His free will, and the man turned him down. That isn't because God is wicked, or unjust, but because the one that perished refused to stop doing evil and accept Gods pardon. Would you release a murderer out of death row who refused to stop murdering? Why should God forgo justice with unrepentant sinners?

What you're saying is, the murderer deserved to go to hell and the victim didn't. Yet, what the scripture says is that both equally deserved to go to hell, since they are both sinners. Every single person alive on the planet right now is not receiving the punishment they deserve; every day they are receiving what they don't deserve, which is breath, and life, and a chance to begin forgiven. No one has to go hell; people get there by pushing past the love, grace and mercy of their Creator.

First of all, I am Canadian, not American.

1. Don't tout constitution. I don't care if some lawmaker wrote something down once or in this case, didn't write something down. I don't think government should have the right to film the people it serves.

2. It doesn't matter to me if some person films me in a public place. Or if I end up in the background of some photo snapped by someone else. That's not what I'm referring to. I don't think authority should engage in wholesale documentation of the populous whether through film, internet spying, mail scanning, phone tapping or otherwise.

3. I don't honestly expect that someone will charge me with something I did previously and unrelated. Use something to base a character judgement on? -Maybe. I don't put it past officials/government to use footage unjustly to make a case win in their favor.

4. Of course they can't store up all that footage. I know it's on a loop. And I know all about storage sizes. (don't insult me) BUT, some reels do go missing, get set aside, or get replaced. And many of them are reviewed. I've seen it done in retail stores time and again. (and I may ad that at one place I worked at, the owner would sit there for hours just spying on people and splicing out sections of girls on the film. If it can happen in the private sector, it can happen in the public sector.

5. The fact that people "Have No Right To Privacy" is bullshit. As I have stated, Just because some lawyer wrote something down, or didn't write something down doesn't give them any right over me and how I choose to live. Just the same as I don't have to respect someone higher up in a hierarchy just because they are higher up or make more money than I do. (Insert Grumpy Old Man Syndrome here). I don't trust lawyers, or at least the majority of them (especially corporate ones). I truly believe that they are the downfall of society.

That's all I'll say on the matter. Cheers!

How many times do we have to have this debate?

Search for any of the countless discussions we've had over the years for further clarification on this subject.

All I'll note here is that you reinterpreted the FAQ to simply read "part of a news report," but the original text (which has since been adjusted) read "presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report."

(FYI, that clause was originally added because the community decided to allow a long news report about unjust stonings in the Middle East that included some video of a stoning, but only incidentally and as part of a much broader narrative.)

>> ^Payback:

>> ^westy:
...aside from this if there was a legitimate reason to fight a war and I was in it I would not feel that I need anyone to recognize my efforts, the reward would be the outcome of peace that was achieved the best payback would be for people to live as free and normal life as possible...

There's a problem in there Westy. Most of those riders weren't merely "ignored" they were spit on, derided, insulted, and disrespected all because of a few bad seeds in Vietnam. Much like the way a large portion of the Sift regard police.
And no, I honestly don't believe you would think that the "job is the reward" if you had gone through it yourself.


I'm sorry but that's bullshit. They weren't spit on and derided because of a few bad seeds. They were treated badly because MOST of the country, not just hippies but a Majority of the public believed that the war was fundamentally unjust and immoral. Then you just need some assholes who are going to spit on some guys coming back, and there's a lot of hatred and miscommunication on both sides, it's a nightmare.

Vietnam was a horrific war crime that we inflicted on the people of South Vietnam, we killed them with no just cause, put them in camps, and poisoned them and the effects of that are still seen today in unborn fetuses. Westy is a cunt, but it's absolutely stupid how people defend American wars and Army culture. I'm not going to spit on a soldier but when they said "I fight for your freedom" I'm going to fucking correct him because he simple doesn't. He fights to maintain the Empire, and that is his fault, and my fault. We should all work towards dismantling our Empire and stopping crimes committed in our name.

I couldn't speak to the situation in other countries, although I am sure it is similar, but chronic homelessness in America is a symptom of two things, mainly, which is mental illness and alcohol and drug addiction. People end up homeless for all sorts of reasons but they stay that way, mainly, for those two reasons. Many of these people have had extremely messed up lives and had very terrible things happen to them. That we should help the poor is stressed many times in scripture and a society which ignores the poor is a cruel and unjust one. They need help, and they need compassion. Giving them money won't necessarily help them (most are begging to support an addiction); what they need is a support network. They also need hope.

Careful now, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. You should try it sometime.

At one time or another I've been an anarchist, liberal, conservative and (card-carrying) Libertarian. Like anyone here, my views are complex because life is complex.

I don't put much merit on any of the attributes you've given Romney. Inheriting money isn't successful -- creating it is; knocking up a your wife isn't noble, it's natural; using laws as a barometer for morality is repulsive; and squares are just fearful of everything everybody but themselves do.

Many people inherit money and burn through it irresponsibly. Romney worked hard and created value, which brought him more wealth.

Clinton knocked up Hillary, are you going to compare his "natural" abuse of women and dishonoring of his marriage with Romney's marriage?

Laws, for the most part, reflect morality. Plenty of stupid, unjust laws exist and are bent. I believe if anarchy ensued, Romney would still be the same decent square. He could be fooling us all, of course.

The fact is, Obama has been vetted.

Where are his grades and college papers? Does anyone have a timeline of his immigration status? When did he have dual citizenship and for how long? Do you think a boy raised by marxists in a foreign land shares American values? I don't. Obama was a spoiled kid who decided to "forward" himself playing the race card. He had no reason to be bitter about anything except by choice.

And if you want to talk trash, call him out for: not closing Guantanamo; for not using his position to limit Wall Street's power and corruption; for allowing indefinite detention; for allowing citizen executions without a trial; for extending unwarranted wiretapping; for catering to the pharmaceutical industries during negotiations for the Affordable Care Act; etc.

Arch-liberals 'hate' Obama for reasons different than centrists. On many points, we would agree Obama poses a serious threat to liberty, and there are other additional points which make him an unacceptable candidate to me, but not to you. So be it.


>> ^MrFisk:

Careful now, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. You should try it sometime.
I don't put much merit on any of the attributes you've given Romney. Inheriting money isn't successful -- creating it is; knocking up a your wife isn't noble, it's natural; using laws as a barometer for morality is repulsive; and squares are just fearful of everything everybody but themselves do.
The fact is, Obama has been vetted. And if you want to talk trash, call him out for: not closing Guantanamo; for not using his position to limit Wall Street's power and corruption; for allowing indefinite detention; for allowing citizen executions without a trial; for extending unwarranted wiretapping; for catering to the pharmaceutical industries during negotiations for the Affordable Care Act; etc.
But I know the foam at your mouth hinders any reasoning in your brain. In fact, is Romney the man you put in for during the primary? Or isn't it just anybody but B. Hussein O.?
>> ^quantumushroom:
Romney: successful businessman, family man, upstanding citizen, square.
The irony here is that you, the liberal, have all the facts the libmedia could dig up on Romney, with a huge side dish of bias, of course.
Obama hasn't been vetted to this day, huge gaps remain in his personal history.
What we have now, however, is a 4-year record meriting his firing.
>> ^MrFisk:
Based on Romney's imperformance, he doesn't merit a first term.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Based on BHO's performance, he doesn't deserve a second term.

I guess it's necessary to remind the participants in this debate that I am not defending obesity as normal or non-problematic; what I am doing is criticising the letter-writer's behaviour and commending the way it was called out as an example (and not as a personal attack on the writer; anonymity, remember?)

@SDGundamX You're right, we do disagree once again. Comparing sn being pressured into being unhealthily skinny and sn drink-driving or sexually harassing others is absurd, no need to belabour that point. The target of criticism in the model's case should be the fashion industry (and that of women's magazines, etc) which idolises such unhealthiness, not a cog in the system (who probably has enough trouble with it already). It's different if you are a personal friend to that person, as @Thumper thoughtfully pointed out above. Otherwise, it's a bit like criticising an Afghanistan vet for fighting an unjust war (once again, possible if you are that person's friend/family). As for it being a "private" email, I already argued amply as to why that doesn't fly.

@scannex Perhaps there was a misunderstanding between us, I don't know. What seems clear to me is that one must consider the difference between having a behavioural problem and exhibiting the behaviour of that problem. Example: alcoholism is a behavioural problem, the behaviour being excessive drinking. The difference of course is that some behavioural problems result in a constant visual marker (e.g. being fat), and that that marker does not always point back to a behavioural problem (e.g. genetics, mental health problems, etc), therefore assumptions should not be made. Moreover, That marker does not induce nor even condone the behavioural problem. Hope that clears things up.

@ReverendTed Hello there late comer! See the above for my response to your comment.

There may well have been evil intent in these voter ID laws, and in fact, they may be doing their best to reduce the voter rolls with unfair voting hours. I'm not defending those tactics.

$30 every few 5-10 years is trivial by any measure. However, in researching the topic, I discovered that in Wisconsin, you can already get a free ID for voting purposes: "If you are a U.S. citizen, will be at least 18 years of age by the next election, and would like a Wisconsin ID card to vote (although it's not currently required), please check the ID for FREE box when completing the MV3004 (Wisconsin Identification Card (ID) application) or when applying online" http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.htm

In the case of someone who does not have a birth certificate, there are processes in place to resolve that. You do not lose your identity when you lose your identification papers, it's just a pain to fix it. In this case, the state lost the papers, and it is the responsibility of the state to re-certify the birth of the person in question. Most likely it can be done with a court appearance and a few sworn statements, if there's no other way of proving identity.

Even if the intent behind this bill is evil and unjust, the requirement of identification at the voting booth is neither unreasonable, nor unjustly burdensome. The _burden_ is the same for everyone, a half-day in the DMV.

Thank you for your response, it has made your initial comment much clearer. What you need to understand about the video and why my response was so harsh is that the song, while being directly inspired by Akin's comment, is not only about him, but about society's distrust and often denigration of women when it comes to sexual abuse. While you may have a point about Akin (I doubt it), his "slip-up" does not come from out of the blue, but stems from a sadly widespread misconception of sexual abuse, mostly held by religious conservatives who tend to blame the (female) victim, for being "lose", "asking for it", etc etc (when it pertains to homosexual rape/abuse they chalk it up as part of homosexuality's evils; viz the response to abuse in the RCC).

The reason your comment elicited such a drastic, gut-born response is that it echoes every misogynistic table-turning that crops up when sexual abuse of women is being discussed, i.e. the accusation of "man-hating", "fear-mongering" feminazis (as well as the whole "men get raped too!" trope, which no one is denying). Rare are the feminists who hate men (and those who do are wrong to do so, and generally called out for it); what we hate is patriarchy and everything it entails. The tactic of misrepresenting feminist arguments seemed to me what your sarcastic comment was about, hence my reaction.

So the strawman I copiously insulted was the MRA-hole whose misogynistic intent I read into your comment, and to be quite honest, it was (and still is) very hard to read anything else into it. But you have my apologies for insulting you if that was not what the comment was about. And since you and I are not alone in this exchange, I propose posting our discussion on the thread in question, that way people can see what you meant by your comment and see why I reacted how I did. What think you?
In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
Where your guessing I'm white comes from, or how my skin color or gender would matter in the least, I don't know. You clearly seem to have some kind of history with MRA people and believe them all to be misogynists, and perhaps they might all be. I don't know, I'm not affiliated with them. But you equating my criticism of the video with being in cahoots with MRA convinced you I had to be pushing some agenda and blinded you not only to the intent of the sarcasm tag but also to any other possible meaning of the post, instead reading a simplistic turning-of-the-tables jab into what you seem to have perceived to be my sexist manifesto. That's the problem with reading a sarcastic post seriously and afterwards taking the sarcasm tag as disingenuous.
What I found objectionable with this video was that the artist misconstrued Todd Akin's incredibly stupid attempt at connecting pregnancy due to rape with his pro-life stance to say so much more than he did, that he considers any of those in lyrics mentioned scenarios of rape to be illegitimate. He didn't say that, though, so with all the things that he could be criticized for, there's no need for the artist to manufacture an outrage that he actually didn't put into words. Maybe you know something about him and his stances on rape that wasn't widely brought up in public during all this, but I only read his public statement linked in the description bar as well as reading about him on wiki and didn't see anything in it even hinting at him thinking all rape is illegitimate. So, what I did was basically the same thing I disliked about the sifted video, taking one aspect of the song that I reacted to; all mentioning of gender as pertaining to rape like: him taking her out, husband's privilege, he didn't have consent, short skirts. As such it's misrepresenting the artist's intended message (as I understand it), that Todd Akin thinks women can't be legitimately raped, to instead say that she thinks only men rape only women, hence the sarcasm tag. It's very easy to put words into other people's mouths.

It's really easy to jump on someone who's already being jumped on, and that is what I thought this video did. I didn't think it brought anything to any discussion, I didn't think it was funny and I thought it was unfunny because I perceived it (and still do, since nobody has divulged any further information) as hate fuel and character attacks based on misrepresentation. This isn't the first time I've reacted to this, as you can see me defending another borderline reprehensible person from what I though was unjust and unwarranted avenue of criticism: http://videosift.com/video/Bill-OReilly-amazed-that-Black-res
taurant-is-civilized

You are free to challenge any post all you like, but telling me to go fuck myself, that I disgust you and that I'm sexist and somehow pushing some misogynistic agenda, which has no basis in anything in the post, is not challenging anything. That's antagonism at best, slander at worst. You don't know anything about me, neither how I act, how I have acted nor how I think and feel, so making all kinds of value judgments on my character and verbally abuse me is completely unwarranted. I didn't discriminate against women in that post, I didn't imply women were less than men, nor do I think that. Both actions and words have consequences, even in internet communities, and any and all rash language and inflammatory rhetoric will still linger on long afterwards.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
I will concede this much: my response was emotionally laden and insulting. But attacking what very clearer appears to be MRA misogynistic BS is not "white knighting", despite my perhaps overly heavy-handed manner. Or does one have to follow specific guidelines in order for their challenge of your comment's apparent ideas to be taken seriously? If you had a valid point to make with that comment, I think it's fair to say you failed miserably at getting it across. So instead of accusing me of "comment noise" because you don't like what I say, why don't you come and clarify what you meant? It's unfair and rather shameful of you to call my response petty and wildly assuming; your comment does not allow many other interpretations than the one I made. The only mere assumptions I made were to your gender and ethnicity, based on the fact that the MRA movement is almost entirely the resort of white males.

Come back to the thread and provide in clear language what you meant by your sarcastic lyrics, and if I was wrong in my interpretation thereof I will be quick to apologise publicly for getting you wrong.

(I am taking this off "private" setting because as a continuation of an open sift discussion I believe it should be available to anyone involved. I stand by my words, and I am sure you do to.)
In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
Look, I don't know what emotional baggage you're carrying or what possesses you to go so overboard with white knighting, but you're behaving childishly and if you can't talk to someone you disagree with, or you think you disagree with, without starting to infer your preconceived notions onto them and insult and cuss them out, you are no better than any of the other comment noise that plagues youtube. If you want to rise above such pettyness, apologize for drawing wild conclusions, insulting and accusing me on the basis of those wild conclusions and maybe we can have a discussion about what my post was actually saying about that person's video.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
>> ^Kreegath:

How do you know if you're suffering from man hating and fear? ♫
I'll tell you how to spot, man hating and fear ♪
You're not sure you've got, man hating and fear ♬
Well here's a little lesson for you,
Tell me if the following things are true:
I think all rapists are men - man hating and fear
I think all victims are women - man hating and fear
I rub out all grey areas to prove a moot point - man hating and fear
Men should have no rights to defense against allegations of rape - man hating and fear ♬


Oh, looks like we've got an MRA-hole in the house. Let me guess: you're a white male with malignant priviligitis, amirite? Did any one line of the song suggest falsely accusing someone of rape? Or calling all men rapists? Or hating men?? Oh wait, you ticked the sarcasm tag, that makes it all an a-okay bit of humour right? Wrong.

Your kind disgusts me. And by that I don't mean "men"; no, real men (and women, and anyone in between) know to respect another person's consent and their choice to retract it at any given moment. No, by "your kind" I mean the slimy, any-one-who-points-out-the-sexism-in-our-society-is-a-man-hating-feminazi-and-fear-mongerer kind.

I won't stoop to the MRA-low of wishing rape on you, because I would not wish it on anyone. Instead, I'll kindly suggest you go fuck yourself, because anyone in their right mind, male female or otherwise, would not consent to it with you if they knew your sexist stance. /angry rant

*quality song btw

Where your guessing I'm white comes from, or how my skin color or gender would matter in the least, I don't know. You clearly seem to have some kind of history with MRA people and believe them all to be misogynists, and perhaps they might all be. I don't know, I'm not affiliated with them. But you equating my criticism of the video with being in cahoots with MRA convinced you I had to be pushing some agenda and blinded you not only to the intent of the sarcasm tag but also to any other possible meaning of the post, instead reading a simplistic turning-of-the-tables jab into what you seem to have perceived to be my sexist manifesto. That's the problem with reading a sarcastic post seriously and afterwards taking the sarcasm tag as disingenuous.
What I found objectionable with this video was that the artist misconstrued Todd Akin's incredibly stupid attempt at connecting pregnancy due to rape with his pro-life stance to say so much more than he did, that he considers any of those in lyrics mentioned scenarios of rape to be illegitimate. He didn't say that, though, so with all the things that he could be criticized for, there's no need for the artist to manufacture an outrage that he actually didn't put into words. Maybe you know something about him and his stances on rape that wasn't widely brought up in public during all this, but I only read his public statement linked in the description bar as well as reading about him on wiki and didn't see anything in it even hinting at him thinking all rape is illegitimate. So, what I did was basically the same thing I disliked about the sifted video, taking one aspect of the song that I reacted to; all mentioning of gender as pertaining to rape like: him taking her out, husband's privilege, he didn't have consent, short skirts. As such it's misrepresenting the artist's intended message (as I understand it), that Todd Akin thinks women can't be legitimately raped, to instead say that she thinks only men rape only women, hence the sarcasm tag. It's very easy to put words into other people's mouths.

It's really easy to jump on someone who's already being jumped on, and that is what I thought this video did. I didn't think it brought anything to any discussion, I didn't think it was funny and I thought it was unfunny because I perceived it (and still do, since nobody has divulged any further information) as hate fuel and character attacks based on misrepresentation. This isn't the first time I've reacted to this, as you can see me defending another borderline reprehensible person from what I though was unjust and unwarranted avenue of criticism: http://videosift.com/video/Bill-OReilly-amazed-that-Black-restaurant-is-civilized

You are free to challenge any post all you like, but telling me to go fuck myself, that I disgust you and that I'm sexist and somehow pushing some misogynistic agenda, which has no basis in anything in the post, is not challenging anything. That's antagonism at best, slander at worst. You don't know anything about me, neither how I act, how I have acted nor how I think and feel, so making all kinds of value judgments on my character and verbally abuse me is completely unwarranted. I didn't discriminate against women in that post, I didn't imply women were less than men, nor do I think that. Both actions and words have consequences, even in internet communities, and any and all rash language and inflammatory rhetoric will still linger on long afterwards.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
I will concede this much: my response was emotionally laden and insulting. But attacking what very clearer appears to be MRA misogynistic BS is not "white knighting", despite my perhaps overly heavy-handed manner. Or does one have to follow specific guidelines in order for their challenge of your comment's apparent ideas to be taken seriously? If you had a valid point to make with that comment, I think it's fair to say you failed miserably at getting it across. So instead of accusing me of "comment noise" because you don't like what I say, why don't you come and clarify what you meant? It's unfair and rather shameful of you to call my response petty and wildly assuming; your comment does not allow many other interpretations than the one I made. The only mere assumptions I made were to your gender and ethnicity, based on the fact that the MRA movement is almost entirely the resort of white males.

Come back to the thread and provide in clear language what you meant by your sarcastic lyrics, and if I was wrong in my interpretation thereof I will be quick to apologise publicly for getting you wrong.

(I am taking this off "private" setting because as a continuation of an open sift discussion I believe it should be available to anyone involved. I stand by my words, and I am sure you do to.)
In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
Look, I don't know what emotional baggage you're carrying or what possesses you to go so overboard with white knighting, but you're behaving childishly and if you can't talk to someone you disagree with, or you think you disagree with, without starting to infer your preconceived notions onto them and insult and cuss them out, you are no better than any of the other comment noise that plagues youtube. If you want to rise above such pettyness, apologize for drawing wild conclusions, insulting and accusing me on the basis of those wild conclusions and maybe we can have a discussion about what my post was actually saying about that person's video.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
>> ^Kreegath:

How do you know if you're suffering from man hating and fear? ♫
I'll tell you how to spot, man hating and fear ♪
You're not sure you've got, man hating and fear ♬
Well here's a little lesson for you,
Tell me if the following things are true:
I think all rapists are men - man hating and fear
I think all victims are women - man hating and fear
I rub out all grey areas to prove a moot point - man hating and fear
Men should have no rights to defense against allegations of rape - man hating and fear ♬


Oh, looks like we've got an MRA-hole in the house. Let me guess: you're a white male with malignant priviligitis, amirite? Did any one line of the song suggest falsely accusing someone of rape? Or calling all men rapists? Or hating men?? Oh wait, you ticked the sarcasm tag, that makes it all an a-okay bit of humour right? Wrong.

Your kind disgusts me. And by that I don't mean "men"; no, real men (and women, and anyone in between) know to respect another person's consent and their choice to retract it at any given moment. No, by "your kind" I mean the slimy, any-one-who-points-out-the-sexism-in-our-society-is-a-man-hating-feminazi-and-fear-mongerer kind.

I won't stoop to the MRA-low of wishing rape on you, because I would not wish it on anyone. Instead, I'll kindly suggest you go fuck yourself, because anyone in their right mind, male female or otherwise, would not consent to it with you if they knew your sexist stance. /angry rant

*quality song btw