>> ^cowboydan:

>> ^Shepppard:
People wonder why some cops are slightly hostile to them?

I don't think they do. It's because they carry guns, act like assholes and order people around. There are good cops, undoubtedly who take more of a subtle approach and are really looking to help out in their community, but all the terrible ones overshadow that, and there are far to many of them.

"The most absurd apology for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside from the fact that the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the horrible scourge of its own creation." - Emma Goldman


Really, I'd LOVE to know your interactions with police. I've probably had more interaction with cops then anybody on the sift EVER will, and what you just described to me is complete and utter bullshit that you seem to be stringing together from bad youtube videos.

>> ^Shepppard:

People wonder why some cops are slightly hostile to them?


I don't think they do. It's because they carry guns, act like assholes and order people around. There are good cops, undoubtedly who take more of a subtle approach and are really looking to help out in their community, but all the terrible ones overshadow that, and there are far to many of them.



"The most absurd apology for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside from the fact that the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the horrible scourge of its own creation." - Emma Goldman

>> ^Chaucer:
Neither one of them answered the damned question. They did a nice job skirting around it.


They tried, but the premise of the question is deeply flawed, she gives a flawed, cherrypicked and highly airbrushed version of the ten commandments and asks "whats so wrong about that?". Its like saying "Hitler was a vegetarian, so whats so wrong about him then?" Where could you start against such an idiotic question?

The fact is that these commandments were all given under threat of capital punishment, for things like "having other gods before me", swearing and being disobedient as children. And as Fry rightly points out, they seem to forget a whole lot, including slavery etc. In addition they do nothing in terms of providing rights for people, in fact they strip anyone who follows them of any rights at all, including free speech and free thought, and freedom of religion.

I think it is alarming that people get so up in arms about me making that poll. You can always just vote no? It's a only gauge to figure out what people think.. it's not like it's binding or anything.

Furthermore, I made the poll because swampgirl never got around to it and with the newest banning, so it seemed like an opportune time to do it.

I obviously didn't experience his presence as badly as some of you did, but why are you all of a sudden being all rass-ma-tass on my ass for this poll?

Ignore is there for a reason, if you want to use it. The only thing I thought was necessary was to strip him of his powers (which we can basically do with hobble now), because he misused his powers.

Personally I have no contact with choggie and I have no real interest in it either. When this matter is resolved, whichever outcome, I will not bring this up again, unless he does break rules again and should be ousted. I'm not arguing FOR him, I'm arguing from the rules of the sift. Bringing attention to problematic issues should not be stigmatized, or have you such short memories?

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^gwiz665:

If you agree his "original" ban was justified, then why are you arguing in favor of repealing it? Furthermore I don't understand what you're intending by contrasting "personal ban" and "account ban".
Dag banned the person, not just the account. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. His behavior (that of the person) was destructive and vindictive to the site. What good would it do any of us to ban his account and allow him back to one day do it again?


Because banning the person was the wrong thing to do. He should have banned the choggie account and let him start over, until he broke the rules on the new one.

I'm not arguing for giving him his old account back, I'm arguing that he should be allowed to make a new account if he wants and have a chance to behave on that. If he can't then another ban can be in order. And if this happens a number of times, then, finally, a ban on his person would be in order.

He got capital punishment for a lot of speeding tickets and reckless driving - I think that's wrong.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
For the old-timers? No. For everyone. VS is not for the people who used to come here, it's for the people who come here now.
choggie is often portrayed as some sort of mad genius... like the Unabomber only less articulate and vastly more destructive.
For those who think we should resurrect choggie in any form: Why?
I concur that his video selection was interesting and unique, but there are lots of people who post interesting and unique videos. Not many people vote for them. choggie was successful because he got here early and didn't have to compete for views the way we all do now.
I disagree that he had anything interesting to say and, if he did, nobody could decipher it. Speaking in tongues does not make him a genius. If you miss choggie's "wisdom", volunteer as an aide on a schoolbus. Those kids call each other "fuckers" and talk about masturbation and circle-jerks left and right. You'll be bathing in choggiesque enlightenment for hours a day, 5 days a week.
If choggie really wants to return, let him email dag and make his case.


You are of course correct that this poll is for everyone, my quip was merely reflecting on that fact that no one who's been here for less than a year know anything of him, other than old comments.

As far as I know, choggie did return for a while on the user Sallyjune, which to my understanding dag knew about and left alone, because he behaved (I may be mistaken, so please correct me if this is wrong). This is essentially a unwritten pardon, but this account was instabanned by blankfist when he found out it was choggie behind the veil. (For the record, I didn't know it was him until after the ban and after the comment I made on the profile.) That was probably the first time the seed of this poll started for me.

I get an uncomfortable feeling when people (especially you, freedom-loving blankfist) go around banning accounts that have not broken any rules. If the user had made any threats or personal attacks or whatever, there would be a reason, but I don't think that the way it works now is a good one. We should only ban for "gross violations" of the sift guidelines, otherwise it should be up to admins to do it.

If the grinder is so fast and humane, why not use a really big one for capital punishment? That would make executions a lot more exciting.

"...pro-life, which means anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia and silently favoring capital punishment."

Um, no, being pro-life does not mean you're anti-euthanasia and pro-capital punishment, moron.

Also, one does not need to be an atheist in order to be a libertarian.

And finally, not all libertarians are this boring and irritating.

>> ^imstellar28:
You are saying that corporate boycotts are too difficult. You think changing governmental policy is less so?

Actually yes. I also think it can be more fine grained. Boycotting car companies that charge extra for seat belts won't make them standard equipment, ever. Ask lots of people "should seat belts be required equipment on cars?", and you'll get an overwhelming vote in the affirmative.

Also, since it's law, there's no backsliding. No making them optional in bad economic times, no new companies who have some unproven alternative that's cheaper, etc. If a superior safety device comes along, there's a whole series of regulatory agencies who can test it, review it, and approve it.

Perhaps there's an argument to be made saying seat belts and airbags shouldn't be specifically required, but instead earning a 4+ star rating from an IIHS crash test, but I don't see operating only by boycott as being a superior method for improving car safety.

Cultural changes don't happen overnight, they happen over years, decades or even centuries. Unfortunate for those living during that time period, but thats the reality of societal evolution.
However, when the government is in the way, cultural evolution grinds to a halt. How can you evolve if you are jailed for doing so?

I agree that it takes time, and that government can be in the way. On social issues, I'm already essentially a libertarian though. I'm a touch different in that I'd rather have government give positive affirmation of rights (gay marriage recognized nationally as legal, as opposed to government not recognizing marriage at all, just civil unions), but that's essentially just a semantic difference.

When it comes to more economic matters, I'm happy to call myself conservative in the sense that I'm okay with evolution being slowed down a bit. Not that I'm afraid of progress generically, but I think we should be careful about what we do, and make sure we've tested things thoroughly, and thought through all the implications before we go wild with a new technology.

For example, I'm in favor of bans on human cloning...for now. However, my reason for a ban would be so we have time to prepare a legal and ethical framework for the people created through such a process. I think the people who pushed that kind of a ban through had religion on their brains, and intend for it to last forever though. I doubt we'll see many bioethicists pushing for legislation covering guardianship, clone creation consent, etc. anytime soon.

I also hope someone is paying close attention to robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, etc. I'd hate for the first big breakthrough in self-replicating machines result in an unstoppable mechanical pest or virus.

Turns out I was looking too far ahead, I should've been worried about Credit Default Swaps to the same degree.

I'm not saying people only deserve they rights they can defend, I'm saying all people deserve the same rights. Start there, and let the culture catch up.
Governmental policy does not drive culture, nor has it ever - its the other way around. Why do you think I'm talking to you instead of my state representative?

On this we agree completely. I think we just disagree on where people's equal rights end.

Remember this video? I got to the end without disagreeing with anything they said. You're right that they left off the right to life, though that can be situationally controversial (abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, etc.) and it was supposed to be a happy feel good sort of presentation.

I think a right to life also includes the right to medical care, and access to preventative medicine, affordable healthy food, etc. I think paying for that is an issue, but I think we have a moral imperative to find a way to pay for it, in the same way we had a moral imperative to find a way to pay for manual labor once slavery was abolished.

I dismiss the claim that a fetus under a certain size is really a person - we don't rush to defend cows, swine, chickens and other animals who are well developed and as fully aware, and even more, than a small fetus. Did that just ~blow your mind?

I believe that all pro-lifers have a share of the blame for this, because they engender the hatred of doctors who perform these things. Muslims do not all engender hatred of America - America is to blame for that themselves.

>> ^Xax:
>> ^gwiz665:
>> ^Xax:
>> I completely agree. Also, thanks for 9/11, Muslims terrorists.

fixed.

Sorry if my meaning was somehow unclear. Of course not all Muslims are to blame for 9/11. So why the rush to condemn all pro-lifers for this crime? I'm pro-life, and I absolutely condemn this crime. If I blew your mind just now, again, sorry.
As for those who don't know any pro-lifers who are also against the death penalty, now you do. I suppose it's easier to cram everyone under the same label, but it's not always completely accurate to do so.


Abortion and Capital Punishment are not the same thing, it's not smart to try and group them together.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
And we know they all did what they were accused of doing...
Different argument. There is no perfect system. Errors in the system are not a logical argument with which to justify the elimination of the system.



Well I suppose my main objection is in saying that murder is wrong, and then using it as a punishment. Just seems like odd counter-logic.

But beyond that, imprisonment is reversible... capital punishment is not. If someone sits in jail for 20 years for a crime they didn't commit then they can be released (and often given several million dollars as compensation). If they're dead then they get a "sorry 'bout that".

I'm not saying get rid of the justice system... just the death penalty.

Get rid of the Siftquisition. At least in its present form. It has been overused and usually only gets rid of active users. It seems like there have been dozens since I joined. Even when bans are deserved, it makes me want to stay off the sift for a while. Mostly siftquisions seem to be the result of perpetuated interpersonal squabbles anyway.

And I have to agree with the suggestion that banning should have to be confirmed by a human. Eliminating the controversial voices who spark discussion isn't always a good thing on a site that uses user-generated dialogue as one of its main draws. If that happens, a person should judge ultimately if they get cuffed, suspended, or the electric chair.

That being said, I think that cuffing is a useful tool; more like jail time then capital punishment. It allows for rehabilitation.


Dag, I appreciate your passing power and ownership onto us users, and having faith in the community to make good decisions about law enforcement and other matters. But the sift is your baby after all. If the code on here changes, it ultimately ends up being you (and Lucky) who has to get it done.

Furthermore, how in the blue hell can you put forth an argument against the legalisation of pot based on law enforcement redundancy? It's exactly the same as if we'd continued capital punishment because ridding ourselves of it would put hangmen out of business, not to mention all the large ceremonial axes that would suddenly go unsold. Then whetstones to sharpen them, gallows and rope sales would go down rapidly, gallows builders would have to retrain and possibly go on unemployment, our jails would get fuller, it's all a terrible terrible idea.

You need to have your head examined pal. There are SO many reasons for legalisation of cannibis, and i've yet to hear one against it other than "i don't like it" which often equates to "i don't know anything about it".

All this talk about addiction is fine, but what about alcohol addiction? What about tobacco addiction? You really, really need to think about that in detail and just exactly what the differences between tobacco and pot are. Pot is actually better for your long term health than tobacco, less easily habit forming, and there are no real solid proofs anywhere of mental health issues that i've come across to date. So it's better for you than tobacco, but it makes you giggle and/or trip out a little.

So does salvia, and THAT'S FUCKING LEGAL, WHERE IS THE FUCKING SENSE?

The next argument against pot we'll see is the "strong strains such as skunk are blah blah blah" well you can shove that right up your arse too. I've never tried skunk, never tried any kind of "super strong" strain of it. I've smoked some basic run of the mill weed which i could grow for myself, and i had an absolutely fantastic time doing it. I also alleviated a migraine with it. Never hurt anyone, never hurt myself, never woke up feeling like a sack of vomit and diareah unlike some legal social drugs, never stole anything in my life, never considered harder drugs (other than i'd love to try LSD in a controlled environment with supervision), and i'm pretty damn intelligent to boot.

Spare us all the bullshit and get right down to the truth - you're scared of something you don't understand and have never experienced, and why are you scared? Because that's how you've been brought up, indoctrinated, call it what you will.

If any of you wish to ring in the New Year by weighing in on the perpetually contentious abortion and capital punishment debates, which NEVER solves ANYTHING, then go right ahead. Start off 2009 by pissing people off, because that's always how these debates end.

OR, you can choose NOT to share your opinion on these topics at all. Instead maybe you can write a nice email to a friend, or call your mom, or take your kid(s) to a movie, or anything else that's positive. At least you won't be wasting your time on this. And let's face it: You are wasting your time if you voice your opinion here. You are not going to change anyone's mind, and every person with at least half a brain has already heard every opinion about abortion and capital punishment. There is nothing new under the sun.

I choose to have a Happy New Year, and I hope you all do the same. Peace.

I'm one of the apparent few who support Obama and bend further to the left than the right on most issues, yet am pro-life. So these comments provide a glimpse "across the pond" to see how otherwise like-minded people reason and speak, and I have to be honest; in this case, it's not particularly encouraging.

It's truly unfortunate that the many people who I agree with on most issues can be so tragically wrong on this one. And yes, just to blow a few minds, I'm also anti-war and anti-capital punishment. People are too quick to assume they know everything about someone based on a single opinion.

>> ^jwray:
> I am most definitely not going to ever to commit suicide because there is no afterlife.

funny. that's one of the reasons i was going to.
even funnier, to me, that a belief that there is an afterlife, is the reason some people do.

and no, it wasn't like yesterday or anything, so don't go all mushy on me.
it's not all that dramatic an admission, so let (s)he who has never wanted to, cast the first gasp.

it's why most of you already know hanging yourself is a bad choice.
too easy to fuck up, and die of asphyxiation. instead of falling from a significant height, so that your neck snaps.

only 2 kind of people will generally resort to it.
a) the shoelace hanging. in prison, or elsewhere without normal availability to a gun, pills, etc.
b) the self-condemned. the association with capital punishment allows those with an extremely guilty conscience, who think they deserve it, go to the gallows as they had probably planned.

that's my list, anyway. then there's the non-suicide michael hutchence scenario, where you didn't actually plan on dying, just getting your rocks off toying with your death.

in her case, a) definitely doesn't apply. one might argue b) could, but it's paper-thin. she was a pimp, not a killer. the laws she broke weren't hurting anyone, and i doubt she felt an ounce of guilt for selling sex.

but people like alex jones lose their credibility, by going from possibility, to certainty. instead of just admitting they've got questions, they go ahead and fill in the blanks themselves.

is it fishy? sure.
will anything come of it? almost certainly not, in which case we've all got bigger fish to fry.

>> ^twiddles:

Amendment VIII
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
pun·ish·ment
1: the act of punishing
2 a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
   b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment

Nowhere does it define punishment as being post conviction. Indeed the amendment as a single sentence mentions bail which is certainly not restricted to post conviction. The logical conclusion based on the possible definitions of punishment - even if you were to read the constitution and its amendments literally - is that cruel or unusual punishment (severe treatment) at any time is prohibited. How do you get to punishment as being only something that happens upon conviction? Any case law to back that up? Is it okay if I hit you repeatedly with an iron bar as long as I am "interogatting" you? That flies in the face of logic. If you stretch it enough you can say it is okay if you kill the suspect as long as you were interrogating them.
I agree with NetRunner, Scalia isn't doing his job correctly and he is being a smug prick about it.


rickegee already pointed out the case law.

The dictionary definitions are moot because legal definitions differ from common dictionary definitions. Here is the legal definition of cruel and unusual punisment. Note that it specifies convicted criminal defendants:

"cruel and unusual punishment n. governmental penalties against convicted criminal defendants which are barbaric, involve torture and/or shock the public morality. They are specifically prohibited under the Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. However, nowhere are they specifically defined. Tortures like the rack (stretching the body inch by inch) or the thumbscrew, dismemberment, breaking bones, maiming, actions involving deep or long-lasting pain are all banned. But solitary confinement, enforced silence, necessary force to prevent injury to fellow prisoners or guards, psychological humiliation, and bad food are generally allowed. In short, there is a large gray area, in which "cruel and unusual" is definitely subjective based on individual sensitivities and moral outlook. The U. S. Supreme Court waffled on the death penalty, declaring that some forms of the penalty were cruel and prohibited under the Furman case (1972), which halted executions for several years, but later relaxed the prohibition. The question remains if the gas chamber, hanging, or electrocution are cruel and unusual. Cruel, certainly, but hanging was not unusual at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. (See: capital punishment)"

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.

No one is saying it's okay to beat (American) prisoners or the like. The argument is that other constitutional rights and other laws are being violated in those cases: not the 8th Amendment.