I 100% agree, but at some point it moves from acceptable to immoral, and that point varies. That's why I gave examples that I think many/most people would not consider rape (pretending you're rich), and what I suspect is its counterpart (pretending you're their partner).

Note that I'm not arguing whether or not this was rape, I'm just making the point that there's a valid argument to be made. I know that's cravenly copping out, but I'm not confident enough to make either case 100%.

I'm a follower of the George Carlin philosophy that says you can only take offense, you can't give it. i.e. offence is in the eye of the beholder, and so any judgement needs to take into account things like intention, and should err on the side of free speech. Any psychological attack - from being cut off when driving to being told you have cancer - will damage you only to the level that you let it (which is largely out of your own control), but that doesn't stop the source of the attack from being in the wrong.

This is why I looked at this case in cost-benefit terms. We can't know for sure how this affected those involved, but it's reasonable to suspect that the woman was psychologically scarred through little or no fault of her own, and sexual violation is one of the most cruel and personal. This is amplified by the public nature of it. Yes, maybe - hopefully - she chalked it down to a bad decision, but I think it would be completely understandable if she was significantly damaged by what was unarguably a malicious action against her (even if the malice wasn't directed towards her).

So, @bobknight33, I can now show footage of Nazis shouting racist garbage and attribute it to ALL the right, yes? Because that's what this piece you've posted is. Any time you complain about that I'm just going to post a link to this post and negate your right to argue with your own post.

Finding the absolute worst of those calling themselves (or being called) 'far left' and claiming it's representative of the left as a whole. Do you not think any editor could easily create hours and hours of footage like this showing the right acting like inhuman savages, but they could include actual elected officials supporting the calls to violence and dehumanization, and just as easily attribute it all to some particular right wing organization or the right as a whole with some simple juxtaposition? Please.

This right wing trash pretends chants by a crowd or individuals are the same as an organizations platform, even when the organizations immediately and clearly denounce the chants and those shouting them. Isn't this what you complain about with the right being painted as Nazis and racists (although the right usually seems to take much longer to denounce them if ever), yet you go ahead and post the same tactic amplified from the other perspective.

I'm going to assume that, now that you're being called out on it, you'll thank me for pointing that out, and claim it was really a sly attempt to show us lefties how wrong our tactics are. This is not a genuine argument or tactic, as you would never take that stance unless you had already been called on the hypocrisy. Before that 'calling out', you appear to mean every word.

I'm calling you out, bob. This is some disingenuous garbage. You should be ashamed.

EDIT: BTW, Antifa people don't vote democrat. They think the democrats are right wingers, or at best corporate sell outs....just in case it's not feigned confusion.

It is binary at one stage of processing. when a neuron has enough input it fires an action potential which is a binary one or zero. that then gets "read" by the synaptic terminal and turns back into an analog signal to a "post synaptic" neuron.
As you said, how this signal is then processed by the next neuron depends on a lot of factors including the effects of other neurons. Synaptic strength refers to the amount of electricity the post synaptic neuron sees given this binary 1 or 0 and is often measured at rest. However, if other neurons are firing it can go up or down, amplifying or shrinking it by activating other voltage sensitive ion channels or by increasing the conductance across the lipid bilayer of the cell so that the electricity leaks out of the dendrite of the neuron before it is processed at the soma (the cell body where a new action potential can be generated)

Hey, dubious. I don't know nearly as much about the details as you do, but I was skeptical when he made the claim to the grad student that inter-neuron transmission was binary. My layman's understanding is that there's a sort of "signal strength" between neurons that can decay or be amplified depending on how those pathways get used. Each signal affects others, and so on--it's much more a very complex feedback system utterly different than the binary instruction pathways used by our current computers.

@transmorpher
i would say we disagree but i cant even say that.
you didn't counter ANYTHING i said,you just accused me of being dishonest.

which has been pretty much your position this entire thread.i thought i was doing you a solid by laying down some history,which helps explain some facets of radical islam.

notice my wording:facets.

do you realize that i taught comparative religion and cultural religious history?
do you realize just how foolish you appear to me right now?

you want to counter my argument....by not countering my argument,and implying i am being dishonest.

ok sweetheart,
i think i see the problem here.
YOU are seeing the dynamic through a singular lens.

you want to ignore the historical implications and simply focus on islam itself?
ok,that's fine.
i find it stupid,short sighted and incredibly biased,but whatever..

yoooou have an agenda to get to don't ya?

ok.
then let us just strip the dynamic of ALL historical implications and focus solely on islam itself.
(which is why you mentioned Maajid Nawaz, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Hitchens )
you clever clever boy...
i see what you did there../ruffles hair.
you are SO adorable when you are being myopic and lazy!

so what would you like to discuss?
how islam is in desperate need of a reformation?
or maybe how the original intent of islam from a spiritual perspective was hi-jacked by his cousins and turned into a political conquest machine,that subjugated ...

you know what?
why am i bothering?
you have revealed yourself to be a condescending,sanctimonious know-nothing.who read a couple of books and thinks he 'get's it".

no dude..you read sam harris.

look man,
i am not here defending islam,because as religions go,islam is kinda shit.
but to ignore how neoliberalism and american interventionism have amplified,and worsened and already crappy situation.

that's not even intellectually dishonest.
that is just plain lazy.

whats next?
you gonna do some 'thought experiments" and try to argue that at least america's "intentions" were nobel?

you WERE! weren't you!!

and this little revisionist nugget "Those countries have had problems long before any western intervention."

oooh really?
because,unlike YOU,i actually know the history of that region.
so if you want we can compare how some cities and countries were considered "progressive" and even "liberal",and even some (granted,only a few) that were considered "secular" *gasp*.

how about this,instead of me repeatedly taking you to the woodshed to give ya some of that "learnin",how about you just go look up the history of kabul,afghanistan.

that's it.just one city.

and then come back and tell me that neoliberalism,colonialism and good old fashioned empire building hasn't been a major force in the rise in fundamentalism and radicalization in the middle east.

it looks like you really ARE going to make go all the way back to the dark ages!

and dude..seriously..hitchens ROCKED,but sam harris?
no..juuust no.
i don't do apologists as a counter argument.

edit:i will say that i agree with this "There are actual muslims (such as Maajid Nawaz)that say islam has a problem(especially particular strands of it), and it needs reform. Embracing the muslims who want reform is the only way forward."

you mean that islam may need a reformation?
*gasps*/clasps hands to face.
didn't i fucking already SAY that?

ah well,foiled by my pedantic ways.

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

Time will tell. You are clearly more optimistic about his abilities than I.

Most Fox propaganda is available on the internet and talk radio, unavoidably since it is repeated and amplified in the hall of mirrors that is right wing media.

Um....I think we have a point of agreement here. 24 hour news networks create 'news' drama so they have something to report, I wish they didn't come into existence in the first place, and I absolutely wish they never reported opinion. If I ruled all media, I would go farther and also require the major networks to produce news as a public service instead of paying for airtime with advertising. Require it to be 1/2-1 hour of commercial free news daily, no opinion, no sponsored content, and a limit on how much Associated Press material they could use (forcing them to do at least some of their own investigations). For that service, I would give them a discount on what they pay for broadcasting rights, but fine them big time for getting facts wrong. As my pops said, you don't need to know the truth to keep from lying.

Good point.

I don't dispute racism exists, and its effects are amplified by power and reach. There is a difference between quality and quantity when it comes to racism. Western racism seems of a low quality, but it generates a high quantity due to pragmatic reasons. Strangely, perhaps, I find this less reprehensible than high quality of racism that is mitigated by distance or political clout. That's definitely a bias I have.

EDIT:
I think the above video and my response to it demonstrate some of the problems in that stance. Akala confidently lists a collection of events that he clearly considers egregious. A subset of those I've addressed in my criticism, to varying extents. If detecting racism in our culture is disagreeing about how effective a foreign navy should be in it's coast guard duties on a foreign shore, perhaps we're disappearing down the rabbit hole. If detecting racism in our culture means finding a sub 1% discrepancy in prison death rates in a small sample size, then it could be we're missing the forest for the trees.
It isn't to say that there aren't still problems in western culture, but we are teaching ourselves to cry wolf constantly, and we know where that leads.

Who fights for the unborn? Not the left.

I do agree that these new hindrances are fairly messed up but that is what is available to lawmakers.

There should be a few instances that abortion is allowed and these should be done at the hospital at same day surgery clinics where minor procedures are preformed.

AS fat as the 13 yr old she is not being punished. Where are the cops arresting the rapist? PPH are obligated to report that.
The baby’s heart will start beating during the fifth week. The heart is too small to generate enough sound waves to be audible, even when amplified by the use of medical equipment in your doctor's office. However by the 6th week the beats can be measured.


Its odd if I kill a pregnant woman I get charged with 2 counts of murder. If the woman kills the fetus no problem with that.

1). The Ring's primary power was control of the other Rings of Power and domination of the wills of their users.

2). The Ring amplified any inherent power its owner possessed.

3). The Ring would also extend the life of a mortal possessor indefinitely by preventing natural aging.

4). Like the Nine Rings, the One Ring could physically corrupt mortals who wear it for extended periods of time, eventually transforming them into wraiths.

5). Galadriel suggested The Ring might also have given its wielder the ability to read minds.

6). The Ring contained a large part of Sauron's power, it was endowed with a malevolent sentience of sorts. It would strive to return to him by manipulating its bearer.

Taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Ring

As I see it pretty much all mental disorders are an aspect of personality that everybody has, but in some people it is amplified to the point of being harmful or debilitating. If you go through the DSM, you'll frequently say to yourself "yeah, that's me, I've got that" only you probably don't really. I've met plenty of people with Aspergers that I would say definitely had Aspergers (it's generally pretty obvious), and I've also met plenty of people who claim to have Aspergers whom I have doubts about. This probably isn't helped by the fact that if you go to a psychiatrist, convinced you have Aspergers, and tell them all about your Aspergers, many will probably agree and will be happy to take your $150 an hour to talk about it.

No sir....on all counts.

A cop's job is to 'serve and protect', to uphold the law, and promote public safety, not to pull over hot chicks in hopes he can trick them out of a blow job with the false promise of no ticket, not to perform public sex acts while shirking the job.

Corruptibility is not reduced when you allow those in power to accept any 'gift', it's amplified, because it now allows them to illegally sell their services and always claim they only took a gift.

Society only gains there if the cop PAY'S us that 'value' for receiving the valuable blow job AND gives back the money we paid him for that time period AND finds someone else qualified to do the job we were paying him to do....(or do we not need cops on the job, and it's just as good to have them off getting BJ's instead?) Since you want to give it to him for nothing, we totally lose, only the cop profits, not society. Does that really need to be said? We paid him for his time, she also 'paid' him, he didn't do what EITHER of us 'paid' him to do. Everyone but him lost...until he was caught, now we've all lost (we also lose all the money spent to train him, btw)

Yup, same here. He made it sound like they were the only group that did anything worth anything back then. They would've never gotten anywhere without Warhol using his fame and promoting them extensively and were just stupidly artsy fartsy and pretentious; the mega-hipsters of the day.

I think why he disliked Beatles was that their debut album was released at the same time as Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.. Warhol got them record contract in the first place and the album bombed (allthou has some legendary songs, no doubt) but without him no one would've heard about them since of before.

Also Reed has probably the worst "rock" album on his merit: Metal Machine Music.. Some idiots take that album seriously It's just two guitars leaning against amplifiers...

Also, to be fair, when someone doesn't have a loop back of their voice, and there's tons of sound so they can't hear themselves directly, it's like a deaf person singing. Britney IS singing. This would not be accurately described as lip-sync as in the Milli Vanilli crap. This is definitely "overdubbing" with the second track being edited out. Also, as she knows her voice isn't actually being amplified, she's not really trying. This isn't an Autotuned performance either.

What really blew my mind was finding out Lil' John can actually sing. Sing REALLY well actually. He uses Autotune as an art device, bizzarely.

In the past tense, I'd agree but not today. For starters, First Nation people have 100% full Canadian citizenship and the only distinctions made based on a persons treaty status compared to a non-treaty neighbour in any Canadian city is additional rights and benefits that are potentially available to the treaty person. That is to say, First Nations people have all the full rights of everyone else in Canada, and in some situations bonuses as well.

That said, living conditions on Native Reserves in Canada are abysmal. The municipality I live in is just vastly better off than the nearby native reserves. Better access to education, policing, fire protection and health care. If that weren't bad enough, average family incomes in my municipality more than double those of neighbouring native reserve communities.

That abysmal divide in conditions though is NOT an example of we as Canadians treating First Nations terribly. If you take per capita taxes collected from community and take away per capita government dollars put back in, my community still gives more to the government than it gets back. The neighbouring reserves with far worse conditions receive far more money from the government than they pay it back. Systemically, the Canadian government is economically favouring the neighbouring reserves.

That begs the question why are conditions there so abysmal, and I can't claim to fully understand it myself. The components I DO know are at work though are many:
1.Reserves are NOT fit into government the same way as municipalities are. While my municipality is under Provincial jurisdiction, reserves are parallel with the provinces and fall directly under the federal government. The idea is reserves deserve greater autonomy to respect First Nations unique status and treaty obligations. In practice though, IMO they lose out. My community has education and health care handled by the province, which great benefits those kind of items. Reserves are responsible for those things on their own.
2. Reserves create segregation. The idea is again respecting treaty agreements and protecting First Nations culture from being overwhelmed and assimilated. In practice, that isolation is crippling the communities rather than helping them.
3. Historic abuses against previous generations of First Nations people at the hands of government get passed down to the next generation. This is amplified by the segregation on reserves.
4. Absence of accountability. The same transparency rules that apply to my municipality and all other municipalities nation wide do not apply on reserves. If my mayor spends millions of city dollars paying him or his family to do almost nothing it is more traceable than if a chief on a reserve did the same thing. Again, the idea is provide greater autonomy and not 'force' white beuracracy on First Nations, but the effect is to make it harder for them to hold their own leaders to account.

That's hardly a comprehensive list, but I think it highlights a lot of ways in which the current generation of Canadians running the country are very conscience of treating First Nations well and just failing at it through mutual mistakes. Any efforts to convert the failed reserve systems to municipality status will by fought the most by the very people living in the failed reserves. I wish knew how to move things forward to a better place, but the root is nothing as simple as 'treat First Nations better'.