I wasn't quite clear. I don't mean scrap the system. I mean replace the officers, and train the new ones how to behave PROPERLY, and insist on severe punishment for any infraction. When the rule enforcer breaks the rules, they should have to pay twice what non-enforcers pay for the same crime...with no coddling in "protective custody".
I also agree with reversing the militarization. People will use the tools you give them...if you give them tools of war, they'll commit acts of war with them. Seems obvious to me.
My issue is that the "good cops" NEVER go after the bad cops themselves....as I see it, that makes them accessories after the fact, and also bad cops for obstructing justice. I'm fine with keeping any cop that's testified AGAINST another cop, even one that has documentation proving they stopped another cop from taking things too far. The rest need to go, IMO. They have all been complacent in the face of their own being criminal, and I'm simply not OK with that.
I do agree, simply enacting a zero tolerance policy for ANY officer misconduct, and stricter punishment than normal citizens get for the same infraction would remove most "bad cops" right away...but only if their fellow officers no longer cover up for them. With what we have today, there's no prosecution because they can't make a case when most officer crime happens off camera and the only witnesses either lie or refuse to testify. That's why I say they ALL need to go, and be replaced with new people who take the job knowing it's not a power trip and abuse won't be tolerated a whit. I also think they should have to waive their right to not talk, even self incriminate, in order to wield the authority they wield. I know it won't happen, but a newt can dream.

I'm nowhere near the point of saying scrap the entire system. It needs to be fixed, with real investigation and harsh punishments to weed out these people, but you don't do away with the entire concept.

You refine it, you look for characteristics that indicate a person is going to make an exemplary officer and you start selecting off that guide. You reverse the militarization trend and remove government subsidies that are turning the police into private militias. Last but not least, you make it clear that police are held to a higher standard. You hold THEM to a zero tolerance policy.

Believe me, if we took some simple steps, a significant amount of the bad police would be gone in weeks. Then we could replace them with qualified people.

From this week's issue of The New Yorker:


Shouts & Murmurs February 16, 2015 Issue
Diary of the Left Shark
By Kelly Stout




A remarkable feat of agility was performed on Sunday night, and it had nothing to do with football. It was the sharks. . . . The dancing sharks at Katy Perry’s Super Bowl halftime show . . . danced in unison. But soon, one of the sharks, specifically Left Shark, said enough of that, and began to do his own thing frenetically on national television.

—Washington Post.

First rehearsal went great. Katy says to just call her “Katy”—very down-to-earth move. Happy to see Eric! Grateful he got me this gig, as not a lot of work out there for us sharks.

Second rehearsal O.K. Eric picking up dance moves faster than me, which is no biggie, since I’m still getting over quad injury. Still, resolving to work harder. Went for a beer afterward with dancing Blue Surfboard, named Jeremy. He’s worked with Miley Cyrus!

Eric texted wanting to know if I could use some “extra practice.” Didn’t think I needed “extra practice,” but Eric = good buddy, so I value his input. Couldn’t meet him, though, had book club.

Eric acting high and mighty in rehearsal—keeps referring to himself as “old veteran.” Feel he should turn it down a notch. Super Bowl halftime show is not a combat situation, and metaphor makes no sense.

Rehearsal rough tonight. Eric called my grasp of choreography “amateurish.” Said he did big favor by recommending me, and now worried Katy won’t hire him again. Said work must be “on a professional level” with “zero tolerance for mistakes.” I told him I was sorry to have disappointed, that my work will be “professional level” from here on out. Went to bathroom and cried into fins, but no one saw except Jeremy, who was very understanding. J says Katy makes a lot of people crazy—just ask Russell Brand! Found joke to be a little sexist—and, besides, Katy not really the problem—but appreciated support.

Katy took me aside after rehearsal. Uh-oh. But no! Said she likes seeing my extra effort! On verge of major breakthrough vis-à-vis choreography!

Happy to have long weekend off from rehearsal to regroup. Guy at brunch overheard me talking about current gig and asked if I am a real shark! Of course I’m a real shark! Tried not to be offended, but people can be so ignorant.

Back at rehearsal. Things steadily better, but sometimes feel Eric = competitive with me, since so few of us sharks in the industry. But shouldn’t that bring us closer? (Rising tide lifts all sharks!)

Big day almost here. Grandma and Mom both called to say everyone back home’s rooting for me. Pressure, but in a good way.

Eric recommended some changes to choreography today. Katy considers Eric “genius,” so took recommendations. Feel my success with old choreography hard won, so am disappointed. This time, Eric didn’t offer any “extra help.”

More dance changes today! Can’t keep up, and Eric can tell. Hate to sound paranoid, but worry that Eric’s trying to sabotage me! Going to have a glass of Shiraz to relax before practicing new moves.

Regret drinking entire bottle of wine last night. Skipped rehearsal, which I realize is not “professional level” behavior, but Eric and his “zero-tolerance policy” can suck it.

Embarrassed by last diary entry. Eric is not sabotaging me. Am letting my insecurities get in way of friendship.

NOPE. ERIC’S DEFINITELY TRYING TO SABOTAGE ME. Super Bowl is tomorrow and he changed dance moves AGAIN. Trying to make a fool of me. Unsure which makes me sadder, potential end of dance career or potential end of friendship.

Super Bowl over. Grandma and Mom called to remind me that my personal best was all they ever asked for. Am laughingstock of Internet. Gained hundreds of Twitter followers, but suspect most are “joke” follows. Katy sweet about it.

Jeremy invited me to have a beer with him and other Surfboard. Frankly, feel that other Surfboard’s kind of a blowhard, so declined.

Got voice mail from Mom this morning asking if I’m considering going back for teaching degree. Said I’m “good with kids” and not end of world that dancing didn’t work out. Ouch.

Jeremy brought over falafel last night and made me forget Super Bowl debacle with impression of Taylor Swift. Didn’t know Jeremy = T.S. fan! Promised I wouldn’t tell Katy. Not that I’ll be working with Katy again anytime soon.

Text from Eric wanting to know how I’m “holding up.” Chose not to say anything, as had nothing nice to say.

Jeremy joining book club! Silver lining of Super Bowl ordeal.

Downloaded application to Columbia Teachers College. Think I could maybe make a difference in lives of youth, plus get mind off Super Bowl. Jeremy, Mom, and Grandma all supportive. Mom asked if Jeremy just a friend or what. Her ideas re male friendship pretty “stone age,” but appreciate her interest.

Feeling O.K. about future. Dance world maybe too toxic for shark like me. Perhaps whole episode not humiliation but wake-up call! Considering move to Austin. ♦

@newtboy
i know man and got respect for your position.
have many friends who feel exactly the way you do.
so im not hating.

i have sacrificed much to hold fast to my conviction.
i deal mostly in cash or barter.
i do not and will never have a credit card,nor a bank account.
i drive "illegally" ,though it is rare,because i refuse to subscribe to mandatory insurance.or any form of insurance for that matter,mandatory or not.
i treat opiate addicts for free and give them a place to stay because the clinics (state run and corporate) have a zero tolerance policy.they pee dirty ONCE,for anything and they get booted.so i take them in.

this one,in particular,gets me into some serious trouble with the authorities at the local addiction a.k.a methadone pill-mill.they turn me in at least once a year.the baliffs at the courthouse know me by name.

i get in trouble at tax time because i dont file.my business is not income driven but rather "donation" driven.so...suck it county clerk!

i do work at a friends restaurant as a bartender/waiter and thats on the books,but thats mostly for my child support.

all this has been hard on my family,well,my boys mainly.while they were growing up i didnt have a lot of extra resources,but they turned out pretty damn good.

simply put(me?simple?ha!)
my faith dictates my politics.

@Jerykk
i cant make heads nor tails what you are trying to convey.
are you making an argument for harsher prisons?
or an assertion that if they were less harsh people would WANT to go to prison?
that recidivism is irrelevant so we should just execute prisoners?

i agree that poverty leads to desperation which can lead to criminal activity.there is plenty of statistics to back that up,though interestingly those numbers are dropping in regards to poverty=crime.

as for your deterrence argument.
yeah..no.the numbers obviously dont add up.
right now there are more american citizens incarcerated than the soviet gulags of the 80's.in fact,america incarcerates more citizens per capita than any other nation in the world.

americas prison population=2.4 million..and rising.

which leads me to my next point.
what is the purpose of prison?
well,it should be to remove those violent elements from society and for the offenders who are non-violent a way to pay a debt to the society they betrayed (fill in the offense here ____).

when their time has been served (paid) then they are free to rejoin society and reintegrate themselves back into society.

but what if that system of punishment strips you of all dignity and humanity?treats you like an abandoned dog at the local animal shelter?physically beaten and spiritually shattered,just HOW to you rejoin normal society?

what then?
do you blame the inmate who was thrown into a inhumane system?or maybe..juuuuust maybe..it may be the SYSTEM which is the blame.

let us look at some stats shall we?
the private prison industry is the 9th largest lobbiest in the country.who lobby for stricter sentencing,zero tolerance and mandatory jail time.a new trend in this area is now regarding teens AND pre-teens.they also make contracts with the local government to have a certain % occupancy.(meaning that even if those beds are not filled,the company STILL gets paid).

and lets not forget those kick backs to the local judges.already 25 judges this year got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

the idea that prison is a deterrence has been debunked.
there are over 5000 federal laws NOT including state and local.so at any given time,in any given day,YOU have perpetrated a federal crime.

the idea the prison is for rehabilitation is utter bullshit,another liberal feel-good "look at the good we are doing" trope.

prison is a business.
based on the mafia principle.
it is about making the poor a commodity and exploiting their lack of resources to fight back.
recidivism?
thats just repeat customers.american prisons care zippo about recidivism.

again i reference the milgram experiment.
treat people like animals and they will soon behave like animals.
treat them with humanity and dignity and the outcome is far more positive for a society as a whole..we ALL benefit.

but the private prisons dont want that..it means less profit for them.

the norden is doing it right and the results are impressive.

What they meant by this is to use all power available. They got 100l of fuel to go full 1½h race. The fuel flow is limited to 100l/h. That means they need to use around 67l/h on average, this of course decreases during braking and is almost at max during acceleration. Also energy recovery and the release of that energy has some leeway to be used in different ratios, it is limited to 33s per lap. How that energy is divided, is up to the team.. So they will have the full boost of 160hp from ERS and full 100l/h fuel flow when using "push to pass" button but it's nowhere near the common definition of that function. Traditional push to pass is high boost, on 2014 F1 it means few percentages of power. The correct term would be "overtake mode".

RBR infringed fuel flow rule and no other team had been even warned, FIA has guidelines that teams should calibrate with enough margins to void minor differences between sensors. RBR refused to do this and counted on FIA not counting that marginal change. FIA had stated pre-season that in no case there will be extra fuel flow allowed, it's almost zero tolerance policy.

They've done this before, made a marginal rule infringement and got away with Charlie Whitings slap on the wrist:"change it to the next race".. Their camera mountings is already one of those little things that is technically legal and at the same is not.. It all depends if the TV crews can find a suitable camera. If they say "no", the rules are clear: they need unobstructed view.. That small hole hardly allow high quality picture, the only lens that could even remotely suffice is fisheye lens with a mask: it is not their standard equipment.. RBR most likely will have to change those too (imho, so should merc camera pods and mclaren parachutes too). Compare that to Williams 360 camera pod and it's pretty clear what FIA means by "enough room to fit camera" means.

Last year they had holes on the floor in monaco: ruling was, change them to the next race.. Then there was the TC scandal, RBR used illegal engine mappings.. They used them last year too when there was a ban of feeding fuel to exhaust during zero throttle to feed the blown diffuser: RBR chuckled and used them anyway.. They still have the duct inside the nose, it violates the intention of the rule but is legal technically. Of course the severity of the punishment is a clear sign: FIA just showed that no more of that bullshit, RBR has to start respecting rules.

Again, genocide and religious/political persecution are not comparable to the system I describe. Nobody in my system would be arrested or executed because of their ethnicity, political alignment or religious beliefs. They would only be arrested and executed if they broke rational and fair laws, such as requiring aspiring parents to be healthy, responsible, educated and financially secure.

And yes, there is a huge disparity in crime rates around the world. What is consistent is that areas with the most surveillance and law enforcement (which are generally the more prosperous and advanced areas) have the lowest crime rates. Washington D.C. currently has the highest violent crime and murder rates in the country. There are shootings on a daily basis (despite the stringent gun laws) in the poorer areas of the city. If the police decided to focus their efforts in these areas and lethally enforced a zero tolerance policy, crime would be significantly reduced. However, they don't because politicians don't care about the ghettos and slums. Instead of trying to either improve them or purge them, they simply let them sit and fester as lousy and irresponsible parents continue to breed future criminals.

Putting someone in prison isn't harsh enough. There should be a zero tolerance policy with automatic death penalty, which would need to be carried out efficiently. No more prisoners sitting on death row for years. No more ridiculously expensive lethal injections. If someone commits a crime and there's sufficient evidence of their guilt, they are killed quickly (broken neck, slit throat, cattle spike into the head, etc) and cremated. Boom, no more overpopulated prisons and no more wasted taxpayer money on feeding and sheltering criminals who will likely break the law again as soon as they are released.

Enforcing the law is always the trickiest part, since we don't have constant surveillance of every citizen. Therefore, in the absence of surveillance, we have to rely on fear. There's a reason why people don't think twice about speeding, jaywalking or littering. Not only are they very unlikely to get caught, the penalty when they do get caught is negligible. If you gave the death penalty for the above crimes, I guarantee people would think twice before committing them.

As for Norway, they certainly do have a comfortable prison system. If I were to go on a shooting rampage, I would definitely do it in Norway because their prisons don't seem that bad. In fact, their prisons are probably nicer than the living conditions of most criminals. The point of punishment is to deter people from breaking the law in the first place, not make them happier and less likely to do so after the fact.

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve to be completely dependent on Him for everything. They relied upon God to make their decisions for them, and tell them what good and evil was. However, because He wanted His creatures to be free to love Him, ie just not just forced to obey Him, He gave them one command. That command was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He told them that in the day they ate of it they would surely die.

What lay in the fruit of that tree for Adam and Eve was their own autonomy. The fruit represented an independence from God to decide on their own what is good and evil. Rather than sitting at Gods feet and learning from Him, they would become a law onto themselves through their own judgment. What eating this fruit did was destroy their innocence forever. It ruined the perfect relationship and fellowship they had with God by turning them into rebels who would make choices apart from God.

So, rather than the law being given for the reasons you are saying, it was given to offer them a choice between obedience to God and personal autonomy. The consequences of breaking that law not only changed their nature but brought sin and death into the world. God draws the line at His standard for goodness, which is perfection. It is a zero tolerance policy for rebellion, not only for moral guidance, but to maintain order in His kingdom.

What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

God created not out of need, but out of the abundance of His love. He regards us as His offspring, not His pets.

Act 17:22-31

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

No, because He laid all of our sin on His Son, who bore the punishment we deserve. It is not a compromise of His integrity so long as the sin has been paid for.

Romans 4:25

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification

You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Before the world began, God knew that He would need to send His Son.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:

http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Because being in the image of God isn't about what God looks like, it is about being imbued with His personal attributes. We resemble Him in our better nature, not our appearance.

What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

I understand what you're saying. You're not going to see the picture before you connect all of the dots. I'll keep supplying you the dots as I am able. I think I explained this particular question to you in more specific detail this time around, as to why the separation occurred.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

He knew before He created that His creation would rebel at some point, and He took the necessary steps to reconcile it back to Himself at the end of time. He didn't screw up, but He did create beings capable of screwing up. To allow for the real possibility of good, He also had to allow for the real possibility of evil.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

Or it's absolutely true.

The only consistent model is that God himself created sin and evil by creating the laws, because if he hadn't created the laws, there would be no sin or evil in the world. This understanding is consistent with your statement A and in spirit with C, if you understand C to mean, "We created evil by breaking his law".

Sorry, I should have clarified this a lot more. When scripture says "the law" what it is reffering to is the Mosaic law that was given at Mt Sinai. This law was given because of sin, and sin was already in the world at that time. This really goes back to the beginning with what I described earlier. What we had in the beginning was not a law, but simply a choice. It was given not to keep us from evil but to give us freedom to choose to obey Gods will. You can't freely obey someone if you don't have a choice not to do it. You can't love someone without the choice not to love. The law came into play after all of this, and that is a whole other discussion.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

Well I heard her say "I will kill the fuck out of you" at least twice around :44. So at that point any sympathy she may have had coming goes to "she's a danger to herself or others" and the police will do whatever it takes to restrain and remove her.

Acting crazy is one thing, threatening people is wholenuvalevel.

I'm going to guess extreme anxiety, classes are too much for her and she is stressing out having an emotional break down. After having my brother act pretty much exactly like this, I have zero tolerance for it in others. It's their responsibility and their families responsibility to get their shit straightened out and take their meds like they should, and I have no doubt that if my brother acted out like he does at times to a complete stranger that it will result in his death at some point in the future.

Her threatening and laying her hands on other people during these outbursts are going to get her killed if she continues to be allowed to remain like this with no consequences...she'll start slapping and punching and someone won't respond well to it.

But if I were the white guy she touched, I would most definitely press charges...even if she is mentally ill because letting her get away with it is doing no one a favor..even her.

LOL! I wasn't at work! Where in the heck did that come from?! It's called context! There's social context (black friend knew me, knows I'm not a racist, knows what the intent was when I said it, I wasn't at work, I wasn't around others who might misinterpret it), and then there's the context of the joke, which you can discern that I'm actually poking fun of society often assuming the black guy did it. I'm smart enough to know I'd never make a joke like that at work. I also know it's a bad idea to for example play solitaire at work, too. Does that mean solitaire is an evil thing? OF COURSE NOT! The only thing you're pointing out is a joke like that heard out of context could be misinterpreted as racist because it involves race. I could see my joke being misinterpreted had my friend not known me. I wouldn't walk into a group of people who didn't know me and say the same joke! For that matter, I wouldn't walk up to a stranger and debate economic theory either. Doesn't make debating economic theory wrong! LOL...

Your point is ridiculous in this case. Racism was very often *fought* by comics using similar tactics. Are you suggesting Richard Pryor, Gene Wilder, Jon Stewart, Whoopi Goldberg, Robin Williams, Louis CK, Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby, all of them are racists?! It's ridiculous. Jon Stewart, who is ethnically part Jewish, makes jokes relating to Jewish stereotypes, so that makes him anti-semitic?! Kevin Smith made an entire movie making fun of Catholicism, and he's catholic. That makes him a Catholic hater?! There's an entire section of culture that has been positive in this regard, and you don't see this?!

If you can't understand that, your brain can't understand context, and what is acceptable in various social situations. The joke I told to the people I told it to, when I told it made everyone laugh and offended no one, and that was entirely expected. In no way was it ever said or implied that blacks are inferior to whites whatsoever. It's therefore NOT RACIST!

You've never heard of a christian husband telling their wife to do something and then she did it simply because he told her to? Uhhhh, Michelle Bachmann is on record saying that her husband told her to become a tax lawyer, and she did it simply because he told her to. That's what Maher was railing about as sexist, and he's dead right about that. That's not as sexist as him telling her, "Go make me a sandwich!" But it is sexist that she had to do it simply because he told her to because he's the husband, and she's the wife. Unless of course, in their marriage, if she told him to go become a nurse, he also had to do it simply because she told him to. But once that happens, that's no longer "wives must be submissive to their husbands". That's "spouses must be submissive to each other". That's the difference.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

No, what counts is the intent of the joke.
A white guy walks into Harlem and starts cracking racist jokes and telling the offended African-Americans, "It's OK because my INTENTION isn't racist..." If you told your joke where I worked, you'd be hauled into the Human Resources department and either instantly fired, or put through a merry bout of "Sensitivity Training" under the threat of being fired. You know as well as I do that there is an entire industry based around the reality that racism is irrelevant of intention of the speaker. All that matters that a comment can be interpreted as racist by a passer-by. That's racism under the law, and if you walked into the HR department with a bunch of crap about "intention" as your only justification you'd get your @$$ tossed out the door - and justifiably so. Quite frankly, you should be thanking your lucky stars that the guy you cracked wise to, or anyone else else in earshot, decided not to make an issue of it or you'd be unemployed.
If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend context.
I perfectly understand the archetecture of the excuses you have constructed around yourself. I simply reject them as factually incorrect, mentally simplistic, and culturally insensitive. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend.
That's the definition of a bigot - zero tolerance for the ideas of some others. That's not the same as a racist. Nice try diverting that one.
OK - for clarity... Maher is a bigot AND a racist AND a sexist AND whole bunch of other things. And being 'human' is never a justifiable excuse to satisfy Maher when he attacks people he hates. Humans do lots of stupid things. When they do, they are typically held accountable for it rather than getting a free pass.
If the bible says that wives must be submissive to their husbands, that's sexist!
Put simply, Paul's opinions about women are not "Christianity". He was a unique fellow, who also advocated remaining unmarried - and yet that was never christian doctrine. Regardless, as I said before, I've never once met this hypothetical Christian who tells his woman "go make me a sammich". The strawman is more rare than a fiscal conservative thought in Obama's brain. But as I said, roles assumed by couples are less 'sexism' and are more 'practical reality'.
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but people who agree with Maher tend to be the ones who go out of their way to see him live.
Fair enough. I stand corrected in regards to his audience being stacked purposefully. However, I maintain that it is stacked and Maher would be much more moderate in his crass behavior, bigotry, racism, and sexism if he had a more balanced audience that didn't consist of mostly ideologically sympathetic cheerleaders.
Finally, ANYONE to the left of you, you characterize as a neolib, lib, socialist, etc.
Untrue and hyperbole.
Your characterization of his guests isn't accurate in the slightest.
No - I'd say you simply find it uncomfortably accurate and therefore deny it.

No, what counts is the intent of the joke.

A white guy walks into Harlem and starts cracking racist jokes and telling the offended African-Americans, "It's OK because my INTENTION isn't racist..." If you told your joke where I worked, you'd be hauled into the Human Resources department and either instantly fired, or put through a merry bout of "Sensitivity Training" under the threat of being fired. You know as well as I do that there is an entire industry based around the reality that racism is irrelevant of intention of the speaker. All that matters that a comment can be interpreted as racist by a passer-by. That's racism under the law, and if you walked into the HR department with a bunch of crap about "intention" as your only justification you'd get your @$$ tossed out the door - and justifiably so. Quite frankly, you should be thanking your lucky stars that the guy you cracked wise to, or anyone else else in earshot, decided not to make an issue of it or you'd be unemployed.

If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend context.

I perfectly understand the archetecture of the excuses you have constructed around yourself. I simply reject them as factually incorrect, mentally simplistic, and culturally insensitive. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend.

That's the definition of a bigot - zero tolerance for the ideas of some others. That's not the same as a racist. Nice try diverting that one.

OK - for clarity... Maher is a bigot AND a racist AND a sexist AND whole bunch of other things. And being 'human' is never a justifiable excuse to satisfy Maher when he attacks people he hates. Humans do lots of stupid things. When they do, they are typically held accountable for it rather than getting a free pass.

If the bible says that wives must be submissive to their husbands, that's sexist!

Put simply, Paul's opinions about women are not "Christianity". He was a unique fellow, who also advocated remaining unmarried - and yet that was never christian doctrine. Regardless, as I said before, I've never once met this hypothetical Christian who tells his woman "go make me a sammich". The strawman is more rare than a fiscal conservative thought in Obama's brain. But as I said, roles assumed by couples are less 'sexism' and are more 'practical reality'.

I'm not sure you're aware of this, but people who agree with Maher tend to be the ones who go out of their way to see him live.

Fair enough. I stand corrected in regards to his audience being stacked purposefully. However, I maintain that it is stacked and Maher would be much more moderate in his crass behavior, bigotry, racism, and sexism if he had a more balanced audience that didn't consist of mostly ideologically sympathetic cheerleaders.

Finally, ANYONE to the left of you, you characterize as a neolib, lib, socialist, etc.

Untrue and hyperbole.

Your characterization of his guests isn't accurate in the slightest.

No - I'd say you simply find it uncomfortably accurate and therefore deny it.

No, what counts is the intent of the joke. The other day, I was joking with a black friend and a white friend about how years ago a black friend of mine played a prank on someone, and the victim of said prank blamed me, and I joked that, "I can't believe they assumed I did it. There's a black guy standing RIGHT THERE!!!"

My black friend hearing the joke cracked up. It wasn't racist whatsoever. First off, he knew I wasn't serious. Secondly, the entire joke was pointing out that society often assumes blacks are guilty of crimes or wrongdoing simply because they're black. That's the entire point of the joke! It's not racist in the slightest! In fact, it's criticizing still present racism in society. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend context.

How can I defend Maher on some points and criticize him on others? It's really simple - he's a human being. Humans make mistakes, and can be correct. Maher is a bigot, I wasn't arguing that. I'm a bigot when it comes to people who lie or intentionally spread false information repeatedly. I have zero tolerance for people who do that. That's the definition of a bigot - zero tolerance for the ideas of some others. That's not the same as a racist. Nice try diverting that one.

About the sexism stuff, you are the one saying that Christians traditionally haven't been sexist, and the proof is it's been traditionally against physical abuse, etc. Well, that doesn't prove a lack of sexism. That's my entire point. If the bible says that wives must be submissive to their husbands, that's sexist! That means wives should do what they're told, and while it's more sexist to be told to "Make me a sandwich!" than something more respectful, it's still sexist that a woman must what she's told simply because a husband says so.

Finally, the bit about Maher's audience is laughable. Maher doesn't intentionally fill his audience with like minded sheep. I'm not sure you're aware of this, but people who agree with Maher tend to be the ones who go out of their way to see him live. I know... SHOCKING! While I won't dispute he tends to have more left wingers who agree with him, you must admit many times that's because those are the people who more often want to be on his show, and he's certainly gone toe to toe with the hard core conservatives quite frequently, such as Ann Coulter both on his show and in public debates. Finally, ANYONE to the left of you, you characterize as a neolib, lib, socialist, etc. So even the moderates on his show you won't acknowledge anyway, so your characterization of his guests isn't accurate in the slightest.

Thanks for playing though...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

No, you're a racist if you actually intend to put one race over another, etc. If I joke about a friend of mine who can't dance and call him 'white', that's not racist.
If a white guy jokes about a black man liking fried chicken & collard greens then that is racist. Joking about whites not being able to jump is racist. It is the very epitome of racism. You are perhaps trying to make some sort of vivisection between 'racism' and 'hateful racism'. I do not make such distinctions. Racism is racism. I don't care how light the shade of the racism is. I call it what it is. There's no such thing as innocent racism.
Did you not catch that I criticized him for characterizing all religious people as sexist?
Yes - but I don't get how you can give the guy a pass for being a bigot in one breath and criticize him the next. If he's a bigot then you shouldn't defend him, and quite frankly choosing to watch his show when you KNOW he's a bigot is tacit approval of bigotry. I'm sure if you met one, you'd find that some members of the Klu-Klux-Klan were "funny, and often insightful, even though I fundamentally disagree with them frequently." A bigot is a bigot, and should be shunned, shamed, and ostracized from society - not given a free pass because they make you chuckle sometimes.
If you expect the wife to clean the house, cook the meals, etc. simply because she's the female of the couple, that's sexist.
I agree. But showing someone respect is not 'treating them like delicate little flowers'. It is simple common courtesy. When you are in a monogamous relationship, there comes a time when people divvy out the chores. A man who refuses to help because 'it's woman's work' is an idiot and a sexist. Likewise a woman who just expects the man to work 9-to-5 and does not contribute to the household herself is also a sexist.

Finally, Maher only takes shots at those least likely to fire back?!
By and large - yes. That's why he fills his audience with ideologically favorable clapping sheep. It's why he loads his guest lists with like 90% leftist neolib radicals. It's why why he gives himself long spans of time to conduct uninterrupted diatribes instead of engaging in real debates with active opponents. He's a coward, a bully, and a bigot. That's what cowardly, bigoted bullies do.

>> ^dag:

The strategy of legislating the vagaries of human behaviour in minute detail is dumb, and yes bad for democracy and liberty. If people are causing a disturbance- stick with disturbing the peace.


You know, I was almost convinced by the arguments about non-public places and how the right to dance is like the right to artistically defecate in public.

Then Dag reminded me of the law against disturbing the peace.

Now, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know exactly how it currently works, but let me explain how I think it should work. If a "Peace Officer" is making his rounds through a public place, and somebody is making a spectacle and obviously harassing others in the area, then that person should be warned and potentially arrested. This would include the extreme examples of defecating in public and indecent exposure, and more moderate and disputable examples like dancing at a memorial. Those people would then be tried before a jury of peers, who would make the judgement call. Was the disturbance large enough to warrant being arrested in order to stop it? If so, then the person would be found guilty. And if the police had arrested people for silently swaying in a rhythmic manner, then perhaps the jury could find them innocent, which might leave the police open to a counter-suit. That way the police would also have to make a judgement call instead of following some absurd zero tolerance policy.

So there you have it. I don't think those laws should try to enforce a "tranquil atmosphere for solemn reflection", I think that juries should decide what is acceptable behavior under a given circumstance.

In this system, there would still be penalties for breaking the bounds of common decency, but also some wiggle room for common sense to survive.

No, I don't mean the assault weapons ban. Firearm regulation has a long history in the United States, and Bazookas are still heavily regulated federally and often banned locally. They are "Destructive Devices" under Title 2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons

By heavily regulating or banning these weapons it has made it harder for bank robbers to acquire them.

The 95% and 5% numbers were hypothetical, as should have been clear. I imagine those numbers are approximately right, though. Huge amounts of Americans drink alcohol occasionally and never run in to a problem with it. I'm skeptical that there are many active, long term heroin users who are maintaining healthy lives. If you have contrary statistics on that I'm curious to see them.

Amsterdam has similar laws to Portugal. I actually don't know why you'd bring that up as it is contrary to what you've been arguing and supportive of what I've been saying. While the Netherlands has a "non-enforcement" policy for illegal drugs such as marijuana, they come down hard against hard drugs like the ones I am arguing should be illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands
Drug usage and imprisonment in the Netherlands is not really exceptional compared to the rest of Europe. "The rate of imprisonment for drug crimes is about the same as in Sweden, which has a zero tolerance policy for drug crimes."

Anyway, I agree with you that drug law in the Netherlands is quite reasonable, and I'm glad that you agree that it is "pretty goddamn close" to being a silver bullet. They emphasize treating addicts rather than putting them in prison, but still put drug traffickers in prison for a long time. None-the-less, any drug use in unambiguously illegal.

I take it by your rejection of my hypothetical situation that you believe that any drug use, even if clearly expected to be harmful to other people, should be legal. You are very strongly libertarian. But I believe that personal freedom ends where harm to others begins.

Also, you come across as very hostile for some reason. What are you trying to get out of this dialogue, exactly? I personally am pleased to see contrary opinions and re-evaluate the beliefs I hold.