I think there needs to be a 3rd testament that really clears this shit up.

And if we are supposed to just use common sense, then it means we don't need the bible at all, since that would mean we have an innate ability to make good decisions ourselves.

I'll throw my hat into the internet justice ring for funsies.

I'm guessing the "pro cyclist" folks that view this have never lived in a location with:

1.) A city that spends millions of tax revenue on shared roads, road diets and special lanes for cyclists
2.) A large population of self righteous, passive aggressive cyclists that ignore road warnings, laws or common sense
3.) Or had their vehicle leaned on, mirrors folded in, kicked/punched or spat on while sitting at a traffic crossing

As a cyclist and motorist, I'm glad they got soaked.

@bobknight33
thanks for replying mate.
it is interesting that when you remove labels,the majority of people tend to overlap politically.

even YOU are conceding that there are some liberal/progressive policies that are simply common sense.

which is what @newtboy is pointing out,and was my main goal in getting you to clarify.

and you did.

partisanship serves only those who wish to dominate and control.it never serves the people.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I love science.

Also good to remember that it's corruptible too. Despotic leaders get dissidents declared mentally ill.

Going farther back a kind of science brought us eugenics.

Science is often a victim of orthodoxy. Bad science becomes "common sense" way too easily. Just off the top of my head, telling parents not to feed their babies peanuts may have caused thousands of cases of peanut allergies. https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/04/14/960387/0/en/Pulling-the-Plug-on-Peanut-Allergy.html

when radical right wingers,who lean towards an authoritarian,dogmatic way of approaching certain subjects,yet will attempt to disguise their bigotry,prejudice or hatred under the banner of "free speech",or nationalistic pride" and even sometimes "common sense" (because in THEIR world view,thats what it is to them:common sense).

they receive pushback,and rightly so,because you have to allow them to express their ideas in a public forum for the diseased and twisted philosophy to be exposed for the shit ideas they were in the first place.

but if you disagree with their philosophical viewpoint,and deal with that disagreement by shouting them down,calling them horrendous names,disrupt their chance to express those ideas you disagree with,and in some cases..engage in violence..you lose the moral high ground,and whatever solid argument you had to either destroy,or at least reveal their position for the shit idea you think it may be.will be automatically dismissed by those looking from the outside in.

because you have engaged in tactics that lessen what could have been an extremely important point by becoming the very thing you state you oppose.

you do not fight authoritarian fascism.....with authoritarian,and sometimes violent...fascism.it does not work,in fact the only thing it does it weaken your position and make you look like the very thing you are opposing.

in the free market of ideas,philosophies,ideas,viewpoints,political positions all need to be openly aired in this market to be either accepted as 'good' and "worthwhile" or "of substantial consideration",or be rejected for the shit ideas they are,but they need to be openly spoken and/or written in order for people to even consider those ideas.

when you shut down any and all opportunities for a person to even SPEAK about these ideas,and using tactics that can only be considered "bullying' and "shaming".you shut own any and all conversation without the idea itself being challenged,and BOTH sides go to their respective corners still convinced of their own "righteousness",and nothing was actually addressed.

both the ultra left and the ultra right are guilty of this tactic,and in the end we all lose,but especially those players in their particular realm of ideologies.

because now they can sit happily and contentedly in their own little,tiny echo chamber bubble with their other,like-minded people,and congratulate themselves on their own righteousness.even though they were the ones who shut down all challenge,all criticism and all scrutiny.

if your ideas,and/or philosophies cannot withstand a modicum of scrutiny or criticism,then maybe those ideas were shit to begin with.

so shouting someone down,and being so disruptive as to make it impossible for that person to even begin to articulate their position,is not a "win".you did not strike a blow for equality or justice,because you pulled a fire alarm,or violently attacked a person you disagreed with.

you lost your moral high ground,and anybody who may have been on the fence,or was simply curious and wanted to hear a differing opinion.saw how you behaved when your ideas were challenged,and they outright dismissed you and your cause.

the only people you have left in your circle are the very same people who agree with you already.so enjoy the circle jerk of the self-righteous,but do not delude yourself for one second that you are "right",or have struck a blow for "justice" and "fairness".

i have been accused of being "anti-sjw", a 'closet bigot" and (this is my favorite) 'a cis-gender white privileged oppressor".

as if the goals i seek are not dissimilar as everybody elses:equality,fairness and justice.

but when i point out the wrong headed tactics of attacking innocent people just trying to listen to a persons opinions,which may possibly be:racist,bigoted and antithetical to a fair and just society.that is when i am attacked,and it is done so with the most arrogant of presumptions,with little or no evidence to back up their personal attacks upon me.

because i had the audacity to question the tactics of the protesters,and defended that speakers right to free speech.

you are free to express whatever little thought pops into your pretty little head,and i have the right ridicule you relentlessly.you are free to espouse your opinions and philisophical ideologies,but you are NOT free from offense.

because,ultimately,in the free market of ideas,if your ideas are shit.someone WILL call you out on them,and if you think the tactic of shouting people down,disrupting their lecture and/or attacking the attendees somehow makes you "right" or your cause "morally justified".it does not.it just makes you look exactly like the people you are disagreeing with,and not for nothing..it kinda make you look fucking stupid.

so let those people talk.
let them make their ill-thought arguments.
allow them to spew rhetoric and propaganda,and do what should be done in a free market of ideas.

destroy their argument,with logic,reason and a sense of fairness and justice that appeals to the majority of us.

and i mean,come on,let's be honest.there are certain portions of the population that are true believers.you are not going to change their minds but for those who are NOT fundamentalist,dogmatic thinkers,use your brains,talk to them,destroy those who propose ill-thought and bullshit arguments to reveal them for the sychophants they are.

don't be attacking them.
do not engage in violence,or disruptive behavior.
because then you lose any credibility before you have even begun.

that's my .02 anyways,take it for what it is worth.

If it was influential, it must have been a real shitshow before. Authorizing a change without "doing the math" just seems contrary to common sense to me.

@worm
thanks for your input ron swanson!

your comment exemplifies that our own,personal politics tend to reside somewhere in the middle.
that is where the majority of us reside,and your comment is a literal macrocosm of the federalist papers.

federal vs state power.

which is a great discussion.

but that's not what we get ..is it?

we get a circus of buffoonery,cult of celebrity,and all conversation occur in this weird "twitter speak".

the art of discussion and debate has been traded for faux outrage and sanctimonious moralizing.to even admit that an opposing political philosophy has a good idea is tantamount to treason.

compromise is now viewed as weakness,and not common sense.

the extreme left and right have hi-jacked this countries national discussion,NOT because they both have put forth such amazing ideas,but rather it makes for good television.

and i say this as a person who holds many "left" ideals.i am a fucking anarchist for fuck sakes!

donald trump winning this years surreal election cycle is only a symptom of the disease eating away at our republic.

in my opinion?
both the democrats and republicans have become monolithic institutions that no longer represent their core ideals,having sold their soul to their corporate masters.

and while i can respect the republicans for being open on who they prostituted themselves to,the democrats STILL play the "feel your pain" tripe while simultaneously giving exxon a tugjob under the table.

the extreme left and right do not represent the majority.
and they should be ridiculed and shamed for their utter lack of anything resembling a good idea.

let's kill them.

I keep seeing clips of this "Caught in Providence". I wanna see more. Judge Caprio ruling with common sense. Good stuff.

Upvoting this video unseen so that folks can see the comments by Crushbug and Babymech.

Please. Oh please. What have we devolved to that what they said is anything other than common sense, humane, and civilized?

Anger is contagious and literally lethal. Can we just chill out and deescalate?

I say that as someone who gets pretty mad at times. I need to follow my own advice.

Seriously. This guy is on fire. Seems like he says way too much common sense shit to be a redneck.

I didn't enjoy the video, i didn't see it as a triumph of common sense or reason. I also didn't enjoy the flippant criticism as though this was specifically an attack on feminism by @enoch who never has anything good to say about feminism - which is patently bullshit and follows on from the simplistic line of thinking "feminism good, anti-feminism bad".

Criticism of feminism/civil rights/anything is valid and important. In the same way as Fathers For Justice must guard against a minority of members that are misogynistic, so must feminism guard against a minority of members that are misandrist. Why? Because these people turn non-members against you - being able to criticise your cause is one of the healthiest ways to grow it. Ad hominem attacks are no better than chauvinism and i would hope that my fellow feminists would agree with that.

What i did enjoy was @Januari 's comment which was critical of the point without being critical of the person and perfectly summed up the reasons why a decent person *should* dislike this video, in a vacuum.

Well, yes and no. If you're being dumped somewhere that there's no landmarks and/or no cell service, you might have an argument that getting out puts you in danger, but that's certainly not the case here. I would argue that, if you aren't being left somewhere dangerous, you have no right to remain in the car. Period. Being inconvenienced does not give one carte blanche to ignore the law or common sense. This IS the same as remaining in a theater in that she is continuing to use the service (actually worse, because he's precluded from serving other customers until she's gone) but she's not paying for it....but yes, there are also differences.

I think that's the risk you take when you decide to go with Uber. You pay less, you get a certain type of service, but you have less recourse if it goes bad. That's a choice, you don't get to ignore that if it doesn't go your way. She made that decision, she's stuck with it. She could have called a cab, she didn't.

I don't disagree that he reacted poorly.

He is NOT a taxi driver, he's an Uber driver. I disagree, Uber does not =taxi. Taxi=taxi...Limo=>taxi ...Uber =

Totally agree that women can do serious damage, and also that female on male violence shouldn't be ignored (and certainly people shouldn't victim blame a male abuse victim with accusations of weakness, etc).

I don't have the figures to hand, but I have read before that female violence tends to be things like slapping whereas male violence tends to involve more serious injury.

"Common sense" would tend to bear that out, but "common sense" is very frequently wrong, so it's a good idea to try to find data to back it up. I will see if I can find the studies I read on it.

Hmm... are you sure these are crimes? I guess that a fraudulent lawsuit could be criminal if the plaintiff would knowingly try to enforce a non-valid patent... but since they have explicit confirmation from the USPTO that the patent is valid, it seems difficult to claim that they 'know' the patent is not valid... though it's obviously common sense.

*promote the common sense.