No spoco2, wrong and wrong. If you can't be bothered to research, the decent position is to say something like "I haven't time to check it out but it looks like there are some serious problems there". Because after all, NO-ONE is disputing the human rights abuses, the burning of the evidence, the refusal to tret for country of origin, etc etc. NO-ONE.

But no, you prefer a limp and rather nasty "plenty of evidence to say she's guilty" when you can produce NONE, because there is none. She collected a bag that had a few pounds of mj in it. That's it. They are killing her.

But you are motivated to argue like hell, pluck non-existent evidence, and repeat it again and again.

And you think you are reasonable? You are not. There is something wrong there, because a normal decent person just wouldn't come from there. A normal person would be appaled at the 20 year political setnence (a death sentence for her), the human rights abuses and the show trial, and at worst be neutral. Not you though.

Obviously there are side kicks like you. It is sad, but it doesn't change anything.

You can't be bothered to research: fine. But to come in kicking someone in such a pitiful state, hanging on to life, from a position of zero knowledfe - well, it kind of defines you.

Not pretty.

I think you've got up on the wrong side of the bed westy.

This ad's tagline is that women should demand a condom is worn, therefore it's targeting them and saying that the responsibility lies in both party's hands.

Trying to say it's 'not giving them a death sentence' is really splitting hairs. Would you like to have unprotected sex and get HIV, when the only thing you had to do to prevent it was to wear a condom? No, well the message is sound.

Geeze.

The problem with what oxdottir's example, is that the way "hotness" works means that an early downvote almost certainly breaks any chance the video had of being sifted. The same way, if two upvotes are given immediately after it's posted, it stands a much larger chance of going though, simply because of exposure. This is why I don't like the hotness as default sorting.

I get annoyed when people downvote soething I've posted that only has my own upvote, because it's essentially a death sentence. I've scoured rasch187's sifted and queued for things to downvote with a vengeance a few times (because of his constant family guy downvotes) but I can never fucking find something I don't like. Everything that man sifts is fucking gold!

not a very well thought out advert. basically ontop of saying if u don't ware protection u r murdering people it is saying that AIDS is a death sentence which simply is not true (not in western countries anyway)

Evan though the most recent statistics show that young women are more at risk this is no reason to demonize all men. especially as it is both partners responsibility to insure protection is warn.

shock adverts are so stupid there are far more clever ways to communicate a message (with more actual casuistic impact) additionally if you are going to use shock you have to be cearfull that your analogy is correct.

thinking this advert will make sum one think "oh i wouldn't shoot sum one i am hiving sex with so ill ware protection because i might have aids and that's effectively the same thing" is retarded, because the people having the sex will likely not think thay have aids and will then think well this dosent aply to me because i don't have aids , ore think oh well its very unlikely i have aids so it dosent matter. making this advert a complete loss. WELL DONE ADVERT PEOPLE AND WHOVER FUNDED THIS CRAP YOU FAIL AGAIN .

.......
a relay good example of a sexual education video is that french one with he girl having sex with people until she finds the right person. As it is cheerful positive more reflective of the realty of the issue, easy to remember and the message is relay clear and not at the deficit of a group of people.

I vote "Yay, [sic]" because if slapping inappropriate channels on posts is a suspendable offense, it should be one regardless of whether we like the offender or not, and whether we agree with the offender's intentions or not.

If we really banned CP420 for being an insufficiently entertaining troll, then we should unban berticus and volumptuous, and anyone else who was suspended for turnabout on CP420 or lampooning the decision to ban berticus.

Are we a Sift of laws, not men, or a Sift of men and not laws?

I don't fucking care either way, so long as we're permanently short a troll, and only without the voices of some constructive, but rambunctious, members for a mere two weeks.

I do think we need to view the Sift more like a "nerds only" country club, and not like it's a nation -- people don't have the right to be here, we just offer the privilege to those who want it, and gladly ban people who rip up the course, or fling feces at the nice people enjoying the cat fart videos.

Those who think that will lead to a unanimity of discourse, forget that -- I think we love the people who disagree with us and can make a good argument -- it's the mindless jerks we can do without.

Besides, it's not like it's a death sentence for them to have to find somewhere else to spew their verbal diarrhea.

Or, as dystopianfuturetoday put it:

First, they came for the homophobic trolls, but I did not speak out, for I was not a homophobic troll.

Next, they... well, uh... after that, there really weren't too many problems... not that I can remember off the top of my head.

>> ^westy:
if sumone is religouse it shows thay are not exactly grate at waying up evidence and bing sceptical to something untill there is good evidence to belive in it.

I would still have to give the gentleman a lot of credit for having left Islam. Apostates have a death sentence on their heads that is mandated in the Haditha:
'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.' Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Add to that the danger of getting out of a criminal gang like Hamas (Makes quitting the Bloods or Crips look like ditching out on a D&D game).

And he left Islam for Christianity, which as a whole no longer kills people for religeon's sake. Not to say people that are Christian don't kill, but they don't do it over theological differences anymore. The "Slaves of Allah" routinely cut off heads, because they take the Koran literally.
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" Koran 8.12

>> ^MINK:
but dude, you're still talking like Mission is Accomplished.
and you didn't respond to the first part, about why iraq?


I've responded to 'why Iraq' repeatedly. It's because of just how truly horrific Saddam's rule was. Genocide is bad, m'kay?

Why not Rwanda, the Congo Darfur, Sudan, Somalia and on and on? Well, I'd love to see them helping any or all of those regions as well, but if America can only be bothered to remove Saddam I'll take it too.

From America's perspective it's own benefit no doubt plays a major, and maybe even sole, role in it's reasons for choosing Iraq over the many other disaster zones in the world. I can't know, and only care in so much as it affects Iraqi's. I'm still glad that Saddam is gone and the Kurdish people can now live their lives without living as fugitives with a permanent death sentence over their and their children's heads.

You wouldn't argue America has no business in Rwanda because they weren't helping Sudan, would you? So I'll turn your question around in the context of defending people from known genocidal government rule, 'What's so special about Iraq'?

For extra credit, why isn't the entire remainder of this violence forsaken planet doing anything about Rwanda, the Congo, Darfur, Sudan, Somalia and on and on? Do we really want to just watch as genocide occurs because we dare not intervene?

>> ^volumptuous:
>> ^furrycloud:I've always thought it was funny how a person can disagree completely with the death sentence and be all about saving the whales, but when it comes to a human life...

Yeah, well for anti-choicers when it comes to a human life, they only protect fetuses. Once that baby's out of that womb, tough shit.
I always found it funny for christianists and anti-choicers who are against abortion, but for the death penalty and most often pro-war.


Interesting how if you think about it, that seems to be a hell of alot more "pro-choice". Those people chose to commit crimes, which is why they're even being considered for the death penalty. Those people chose to be soldiers. All I'm saying, is maybe we should wait until all those babies are old enough to make they're own choice. I bet most of them would choose not to be killed.

>> ^furrycloud:I've always thought it was funny how a person can disagree completely with the death sentence and be all about saving the whales, but when it comes to a human life...


Yeah, well for anti-choicers when it comes to a human life, they only protect fetuses. Once that baby's out of that womb, tough shit.

I always found it funny for christianists and anti-choicers who are against abortion, but for the death penalty and most often pro-war.

>> ^imstellar28:
^god is clearly pro-abortion: the infant mortality rate is ~50% worldwide. how many babies has he killed in the past 5,000 years since he made eve out of adam's rib...hmm?


Hmmm, yes... Let's blame God for this and hope that the blood of millions won't be on our hands.

If you want to talk abortion worldwide, we're looking at more like 40 million a year. Conservatively. That's in just one year. At least we in America are a first world country with progressive beliefs; so much better than the rest of the world.

I've always thought it was funny how a person can disagree completely with the death sentence and be all about saving the whales, but when it comes to a human life, someone that they, God forbid, might have to take responsibility for, would rather just take a life.

>> ^gwiz665:
^Haha, never been called genocidal before, but sure why not. I'm just fed up. I doubt that this could ever happen, and I don't really think it should. Genocide is never the answer.
I know quite a bit about islamic culture and I have little sympathy for it (hmm, I just mean Islam, not the surrounding culture: arts, music etc). If I could purge the religion without harming the people, I would. Religion is foolish, vicious and evil.
Lately Islam is the center of attention, but Christianity is equally foolish and in extreme cases exactly as vicious and evil. For some reason "main stream" Islam is still waaay more extreme than main stream Christianity.
I think that with the current US government we could easily see a wipe-out of Afghanistan, if a westerner had been in that situation. Hell, I could see them letting a westerner get stoned to get us into war (or rather a bigger war than the current) there, if only there had also been oil.


I actually wasn't talking about reading up on Islamic culture, I was talking about reading up on the complex interactions between societies, as well as the the history, motivations, and current and past consequences of our foreign policy in the middle east.

>> ^gwiz665:
To be honest, it's too bad it's not a westerner that in prison there, because then Afghanistan would give us a good reason to wipe them off the face of the earth.


And you wonder why we have terrorism in the world. No offense, but you are a genocidal maniac. And if you are going to completely wipe out an entire culture...maybe read up on it a little bit first, hmm?

Much more interesting than TYT, the realnews, and other such divertimento....Who's brainchild/death sentence is this????

“Obviously those of the Mormon superstition have not been enlightened about the great, holy, and sacred Flying Spaghetti Monster. Be saved from DEATH! Be saved from being EVIL! Be a GOOD person and live FOREVER in Spaghetti HEAVEN!”


My studies at Boston College in Theology of the major religions convinced me that the primary reason religions can successfully exist is because they promise a way to escape death. This is utilization of the instinct to survive. Most religions deriving from the Middle East also heavily utilize a constant "judgment" by a "higher power" which can withdraw the possibility of escaping death, therefore conveying the death sentence, if the "rules" of the religion are violated. These "rules" almost always require submission to higher "spiritually" developed humans, thereby creating authority and power in the religion, which assures growth and solidity of the religion, and the imperative to convince non-believers to believe in the religion (and hence in its' rules) in order to escape death.

The aspect of religion that is, to me, so incredible, is that they are all based upon a history of occurrences in a far distant past, a history that has changed multiple times in its' travel to the present. Each change was primarily made to further empower the leaders of the religion at the time of the change.

Present day “proofs” of the existence of “higher power” are inane and “believers” present as proof intangible totally subjective experience. If there would be a “higher Power” which is omnipotent, that “higher power” must, considering the suffering of human beings of the world, be horrendously uncaring and evil.

My objection to religion is that the "rules" it imposes inhibits free will and instills shame, fear, and guilt. Freely experiencing such basic instincts as sexuality and enjoying the freedom to be ones’ unique self (without being constantly judged) are penalized with the death sentence. Religion assumes that humans are basically evil and MUST be controlled by religion or they will be thieving, murdering, animals, devoid of empathy and incapable of agape (which, in my mind, seems to describe the “omnipotent higher power” should one exist).

I believe writing LONG sentences is NOT evil!!

As an aside: If we libs take a look at Bill Clinton through modern eyes, it isn't all that pretty. His death sentence to hundreds of thousands of Serbians was no more acceptable than Bush's adventures in Iraq. I expect more of the same from Hillary. I hate to go all Choggie, but all her talk about 'national security' tonight is a love letter to fascism, pure and simple.

I disagreed when Nader said there was no difference between Gore and Bush. I'm afraid I can't say the same for Clinton and McCain. Feel free to change my mind on this, fellow dems, if you like.

I haven't lost all hope. Obama will still have a decent delegate lead after all of this, regardless of Texas.