Ah, thank you for the clarification

@oritteropo

For clarification, from where is he speaking and to whom?... the room seems entirely empty.

Also it sounds very much like the American Green Party.

@longde
Out of politeness, I've removed the link.

But the article's chronicling of the urban decay data seems to be a useful companion to mainstream sources, which need to either spin data optimistically or not report it. That leaves behind a lot of victims who could have prevented the crimes against them.

The only mention of race in my comment was inclusive of all ancestries: "I'm speaking to the minority of people from all ancestries who are on the side of civilization."

The rest of the comment is about culture. Many people try to make them the same thing. They're not the same. That's why I included the clarification about all ancestries.

These types of considerations are far from the site you mentioned, which isn't a place I'd ever go. They'd consider me a hippy.

Were you directing this question at me?

If so, sincere request for clarification: Do you purport such is a prerequisite in reality?

...and....

Did you infer any reference to yourself or to the bortherhood of peace officers? If so, it was not my intent. Rather, the old saw from Hamlet.

Point of clarification, I know there is lots of evidence of localized flooding, I'm speaking of a lack of evidence for the Bible's description of a world wide flood.

Also, my understanding of the first five books were that they all come from 4 older documents, which were segmented into the Pentateuch... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis for more. I haven't followed up with more recent hypothesis regarding the books, but I was under the impression the general idea, even if it isn't the the specific four books originally thought composed the books, with Genesis being a combo of all four, which stretch into 500 BCE. The Noah story itself is combined of the "Jahwist (YHWH) source and the Priestly (Elohim) source", and the Priestly would be after the exile, though the Jahwist would be well before the exile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_flood_narrative and it's link to flood myths overall). I know Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources, and without taking the time to vet the sources they quote, I'll go with the explanation given for the moment.

Also, I'm into seeing it. I'm sure it will be entertaining. Aronofsky alone makes it worth considering at the very least... Biblical epics (and semi Biblical movies such as Ben-Hur...) can make for great cinema. So count me in... Even when I was a Christian I started doubting the flood story as anything more than a parable or allegory, much like the Creation story, Jonah, Sodom's destruction and the rescue of Lot... and there are some good stories to tell... perhaps some exposure to other myths would be nice, but I think the Abramic stories are more familiar to more Americans and world wide audiences than say trying to make a movie about some Celtic god... or Nordic god (Thor doesn't count...)... most of which they'd butcher in Hollywood anyhow...

Wow, I guess I'm a world apart when it comes to this sort of thing. Thanks for the clarification and education.

@enoch, if I sound evangelical, it's because I have an allergic reaction to misinformation and a deep aversion to disinformation...

Here are my comments, interspersed:

> and how come all your examples are the european countries that got fucked
> in the ass by corrupt currency and derivative speculators?"

By corrupt currency, do you mean the Euro? These are a big percentage of the so-called "1st world countries."

> are you working for goldman sachs?
> whats the deal man?

Are these borderline ad hominem, or did I miss something...

> denmark? finland?

Is that it, do you want to limit the evidence to the scandinavian countries? Fine, list for me the countries you want me to address and compare to the US or more free market economies and we will proceed from there.

> but its apparent you dont know shit about socialism.
> socialism-communism=not the same.

Personal attacks aside, communism is a type of socialism in the Marxist sense. But to clarify, please define 'socialism' as you think it should be defined, if something other than public control over the means of production.

> and no free market carny barker never seems to want to talk about.

Are you getting upset about something, or are you not calling me a "free market carny barker"?

> 1.how do you fix the currency issue with its pyramid scheme?

What is the currency issue? The central bank's monopoly in currency? You get rid of legal tender laws and let people decide what currency they want to use and accept.

> 2.how do create a level playing field for the wage slave? or debt slave?

You have to be more specific as to what "level playing field means in practice" so that I can answer this.

> 3.or can you outright buy people?

Do you mean slaves? No, that goes against free-market non-aggression and self-ownership principles.

> 4.since nothing is communal and there is no regulation.is there anything that
> cannot be commodified?

Again, please be more specific about what you mean by "commodified." Do you mean are you free to buy and sell anything as long as you don't violate self and property rights? Not clear what you mean here but I'm sure with some clarification I can address it.

> look man.i get it.lots of good things can happen with a free market. but so can
> a lot of bad. eyes open my man.

Sure, but please tell me, what specifically bad can happen in a free market that cannot happen as bad or worse in a non-free market?

> reminds me of the scientist who came up with game theory.
> from the rand institute i think. the whole cold war was set up on this dudes
> principles of self-interest. did a bunch of testing on dudes and the data
> seemed conclusive...until he did the same experiment with secretaries. turns
> but they were unwilling to dick each other over and were more prone to co-
> operate with each other.

How is this relevant? People like to cooperate. That's the basis for the voluntary free market and why it works.

> well how about them apples.co-operation as a way on interacting. ya dont
> say? very interesting.

I agree. Voluntary interaction equals cooperation. That is the free market. Coercion is the non-free market. Is there disagreement here, because I don't see it.

> i know we both agree that what we have now is a clusterfuck.
> and i agree that the free market should have a place,that its even vital. but
> unrestricted free markets? naw..no thanks.

I still don't know the specifics of how exactly you want to "restrict it" and how specifically you want to restrict it. You must forgive me if I don't think you are as competent to restrict me and my life and my business and I myself am. The same with your life and business, I am not qualified to restrict it.
Who is then? Specifically, "who" do you want to restrict you, and your freedom to engage in free trade?

God dammit. I was not aware of that. The reports I'd heard were ~20 years. Maybe they meant 20 for each conviction of espionage (of which there were 5, right?)

Either way, thanks for the clarification and for helping me find my depression again.

If you're not singing the establishment's praises and regurgitating government talking points, then clearly you're not a journalist. Or was that a propagandist? Damn, I always mix those up...

Maybe I should ring up the Minitrue and ask for clarifications.

Thanks for that clarification. I'll stand by the wtf still : )

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not to upset disagreeing over interview protocol. I am just of the opinion that interviews shouldn't always be conducted without challenging the interviewee's positions and statements. I believe on egregious enough statements it is in fact the interviewers job to push, and in proportion to the statements. That's where I feel this interview was weak.

That said, I 100% believe that interviews that completely accept and just hear out the subject's positions have their place. It's one of the things the VICE guys do best and what makes them, IMHO one of the singular best news sources out there today.

I was missing the core message here due to the initially apparent illogicality and counter-productiveness of the methodology employed to spread it.. however this limited view was based on my not having personal experience of living in a culture that is overly oppressive to women to such an unfamiliar degree.

So thanks to @Lann and @chingalera for the clarification and alternative perspective (before I made an ass of myself making comments that would have only related to some more so progressive cultures where this type of protesting isn't needed)

I understand your flabbergast and I sense your sincerity, appreciated. As for the desired/elicited clarification with regard to what I was saying??...I didn't say shit, I posted a video in the wake of current-affairs having to do with guns and read your sound, valid, cogent, and passionate foray into the world as you would have it be interpreted or experienced....and then-You suggested that I was saying something.
Wasn't saying anything, merely tossing some chum out to check the regular rabble's response-time, and yours was the most long-winded and similar I decided to poke.

Yeah. Don't put words in mouths or infer, might make you seem like an insurgent...trouble-maker...Team-Player??

ChaosEngine??
Frame it. Bookmark it if it satisfy, your on the short list of reasonably consistent, snide, smug, comments regarding this particular subject you have a strong feeeling for, I can relate. If you can't get the jyst, the meat of what was written, simplycall me names, retarded, rude, hayseed....give a fuck. You took the bait and I'm on a boat.

"complete and utter lack of sense, the rambling, disjointed nature and the total failure to make anything approaching a coherent argument...blah, blah, schoolyard-shenannigans, BLAH
" NOTE: TO you sir: To you my words seem thus, to you and a vehement minority of folks. Perception is a motherfucker.

Well I'm flabbergasted. I was trying to get people to stop down-voting your video, because I wanted your voice to be heard regardless of whether or not people disagree with you. And then I politely asked for clarification on what you were saying because I felt there might be a misunderstanding.

Now I just think more people should see you make an ass if yourself. Please get this video sifted, people.

*promote

How many times do we have to have this debate?

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

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

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