>> ^Aniatario:

^ There was a sh tload of things they could've used. Tazers, pepperspray, rubber bullets, common fucking sense?


Ya, that or wait till he leaves the house in the morning and arrest him? I don't understand why forced entry is even necessary in most of these cases. I guess mostly because waiting around for someone to leave a house requires manpower/police work. It is easier to bust down the door, shoot the guy, then file a report.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

How is what these guys said any different than what the 'other guy' says (and gets a pass)?

What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Politicians since times ancient have grossly extrapolated the actions/policies of their opponents.
[snip]
Bachman wanted people 'armed and dangerous'. Barak Obama wanted people "angry, get in their face, hit back twice as hard, bring a gun". I see no difference.

First, you need to source your Obama quote. I only found this as context:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Kinda sounds like it's a metaphor, does it not?

Secondly, that never became any sort of Democratic talking point or campaign slogan. You didn't hear it coming out of the mouths of everyone on the left every 10 seconds for the better part of a year, the way you heard "death panels".

Thirdly, have you followed the link on Bachmann's full quote, and read it in context? If not, here's more:

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.

I see the word revolution being used literally. I see talk of losing the country, of losing freedom, in the context of saying "I want people armed and dangerous".

Fourth, have I mentioned that this is in the larger context of falsely accusing Democrats of making up global warming?

So, the Obama quote isn't well sourced, doesn't involve a lie, was pretty transparently a metaphor for traditional electioneering activities, and I suspect if Obama was asked about it today he'd say it was a poor word choice. Bachmann's quote we have audio recordings of, involves a big lie, was pretty clearly about armed insurrection against the legitimate government of the United States, and while I suspect she would say "I didn't mean that", she probably wouldn't confess to any kind of issue with her word choice.

I don't see any equivalence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Palin's death panel is an exaggeration of the rationed care that IS a part of Obamacare. Similarly, Democrats accuse the GOP of starving people when they want to cut a social program.

Really? Neither statement is true.

First, medical care is a scarce resource, and any system by which we choose to distribute it is by definition "rationing", whether it's a market, or something else, so saying "Obamacare" has "rationing" is a meaningless statement. Even if I grant some special meaning of the word "rationing", there still isn't anything even remotely like Palin's "death panel" in the bill anywhere.

Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people? To be frank, I wish they would, especially since it's true more often than not. The closest I've seen is Alan Grayson saying that the Republican health care plan is "#1 Don't get sick. #2 If you do get sick, die quickly."

For that one to be true you need to wrap some caveats around it, but basically if you can't afford insurance, or have a preexisting condition, that was totally accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Do I like the overblown rhetoric? No, but it is part and parcel of any vigorous debate.
No normal person takes these statements literally though. And trying to pander to the NOT normal people seems to me an exercise in futility. Moreover, trying to be "PC" using the outliers of society as a standard is an impossible moving target, and rather subject to opinion.

To a large degree, this is a response to an argument I'm not making. I actually really like overblown rhetoric. What I don't like is the way the right imputes sinister motives to the left. It's not just "they're corrupt and beholden to special interests (and sometimes mansluts)", these days it's "they're coming to take your guns, kill your family, make your kids into gay drug addicts, take your house, your job, and piss on the American flag while surrendering to every other nation in the world".

The left is getting pretty coarse about the right, but most of our insults are that Republicans are corrupt and beholden to special interests...and dumb, heartless liars.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There is no nice way to say this, but you are wrong. They were not, and you know it. There is no GOP candidate who would have survived 5 seconds if they'd been calling for armed rebellion if they lost. That is hyperbole.

I'd love to be wrong about this. I am not. Scroll back up to my first comment here, there are two videos of Republicans calling for armed insurrection if they lose. These two were small potatoes, but Michele Bachmann and Sharron Angle both were saying the same thing, just a little less directly. Rick Perry has been a bit more overt, but also a lot less graphic (talk of secession rather than revolution). Not to bring the Tea Party into this, but they kept showing up with signs talking about "Watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I put it to you kindly that this opinion is another symptom of perception bias. Would you not agree that from Glenn Beck's perspective his infamous 'chalkboard histories' are an attempt to educate and outreach? And quite frankly, I feel very little sense of 'outreach' or 'education' when liberals call conservatives hateful, angry, evil, nazis, corporate shills, mind numbed robots, neocons, teabaggers, racist, sexist, and bigoted.

No, Beck's not trying outreach with his blackboards. He's painting a false picture of history in which liberalism is about violence and domination, and entirely overrun by a conspiracy of nefarious interests. That's not outreach, that's poisoning the well so that it's impossible for people who think he's illuminating some sort of truth (and to be clear, he is not), to talk to the people who haven't subscribed to Beck's belief that liberalism progressivism is just the new mask the fascists have put on to insinuate themselves into modern society so they can subvert it from within.

It's true that the left isn't engaging in outreach when they're calling you names. I suspect you haven't seen much outreach, given the way you personally tend to approach topics around here. You don't seem like the kind of person who's open to outreach.

That said, if I thought there was a way to show you what I think is good about liberalism, I would do so. I'd be happy to give you my take on what liberals believe and why, if you're genuinely interested in trying to understand the way we think.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Sure - just be sure to allow that both ways. Criticize conservative pundits all you want. But don't get all testy if conservatives criticize liberal ones. And if you try to pin accessory to murder on conservatives, don't be surprised when they get their back up.

Yeah, I didn't. See, the right's been calling us murderers and tyrants quite a bit lately. They've been making the case in countless different ways that government run by Democrats, and especially by Obama is fundamentally illegitimate. Not "something we strongly disagree with" but a total break with the fundamental principles of our government that present a direct threat to people.

Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.

Again, I'd love to see someone prove me wrong about that. Ad hominem tu quoque arguments won't really do the job.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
That is because I'm bearding the lion in its metaphorical den, so to speak. The sift is liberally slanted. I'm not. So even when dare to challenge the consensus groupthink - even when done respectfully - I get blowback. I would say that I am incredibly patient, respectful, and moderate in my tone. I rarely (if ever) make things personal. Even when I'm on the receiving end of some rather nasty abuse I tend to keep it civil.

I think then there may be room for me to maybe help understand the kinds of reactions you get.

Part of the issue is a lot of your comments are of the formation "What liberals are saying is utterly, demonstrably, and obviously false, and in fact, they're more guilty of it than the right". You then support your argument with a litany of asserted facts...that you don't source, and are in direct contravention of what was said elsewhere (regardless of whether it'd been sourced or not).

Part of the issue with making an argument purely on challenging facts is that you run headlong into questions about the legitimacy of the source, and those can be some of the ugliest arguments of all, especially if the only source cited is yourself.

I'd recommend trying to make philosophical or moral arguments that don't hinge on the specific circumstances, especially when we're talking about events we only know about from news stories. I find it helps move conversations from heat to light when you shift the discussion to the underlying philosophical disagreement like that.

I also think you'll get farther with making a positive statement about what you believe, than a negative statement about what you believe liberals believe. (i.e. instead of "Liberals just want to boss people around with their nanny state", try "Conservatives are trying to give people more freedom to choose how to run their own lives")

People will likely still disagree with you, but at least there's a chance they'll respond to what you said, rather than just hurl invectives at you.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I don't apologize for being a rare conservative voice in a chorus of liberals, but that doesn't mean that "I" am responsible for 'increased vitriol'. The vitriol comes when people other than myself. I simply present a different point of view.

I don't think you should apologize. However, I also think you have to be willing to accept some responsibility for how people react to what you say. I'm self-aware enough to know that what I say is going to sound inflammatory to some people, and I certainly don't feel like criticism of my own inflammatory speech is somehow an assault on my free speech.

If you're getting a lot of vitriol (and I know you are), and that's not what you want, I think you should examine the way you're presenting yourself rather than assuming it's all the result of some sort of universal liberal intolerance.

This place has a bunch of really thoughtful people who enjoy civil discussion with people who they disagree with. If that's what you want, I gotta say I think you're just pushing the wrong buttons.

How is it that people cannot defend themselves right now? We can still purchase a wide variety of weapons, including firearms. Do you need an RPG to protect your apartment?

I'm trying real hard to understand your moral vs. immoral approach to crimes. You seem to be claiming that it is immoral for the government (representatives of the collective public) to throw a person in prison for breaking the law. Tell me if I'm wrong, because I don't know how else to interpret that weird "stabbing you with a knife to quit smoking" example.

Incentivize people using fear and violence? What does that even mean? Fear is a good thing. Fear of consequences. Whether there is a government around or not, there will be consequences for actions. Either from a neutral party (like police and the courts) or from vigilantes (the family and friends of the victim). From my point of view, there's more violence in your proposed world.

Your entire argument is beginning to sound like "I can't smoke what I want where I want so let's burn this whole mutherfuker down!" and "I can't buy a guy without a three day waiting period so let's burn this whole mutherfuker down!"

You have no clue what would even happen if you got your way, and you act like we are crazy for defending a system that at least functions a little bit. We're not crazy, we have a pretty good idea how fucked up the world gets when there is no functioning government. It's like those African countries where they don't have any roads but they've all got AK-47's. Where entire villages get wiped out by roving mercenary gangs. Where hundred or thousands of women get raped and nobody does a damn thing about it. I don't want to live there, and I don't think you do either. It's fucking hell on earth, and you think everybody is suddenly going to start being nice to each other? Because there is no government to "incentivize violence"?

I'm trying real hard not to start throwing insults, so please tell me why you think I am wrong. Aside from allowing you to buy more weed and guns, how would a lack of government be better?


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^MaxWilder:
I think we're stuck on the word "prevent". Nothing can prevent crime, only discourage it and punish people who are caught committing crimes.
So the real question is: would your system do a better job discouraging people from harming one another? And when someone inevitably does, what happens when they are caught?
Currently, we have courts and police to discourage crime and attempt to punish those who commit crimes.
I see no alternative, other than vigilante justice, which in my humble opinion would suck balls. Please explain how it would be better!

Yes, "prevent" was the word dystopianfuturetoday scrawled above as some sort of ham-fisted challenge as if there's any proof the current system prevented anything. No law (no matter the number or the severity of the draconian punishment) will prevent a crime. If it did, then today we'd have no murder, no rape, theft, etc.
Would a voluntary society discourage crime? Maybe. Who knows. If you mean discouraging the more egregious crimes like murder and rape and theft, I feel confident it would help to allow people the right to self defense by allowing them to arm themselves if they chose to do so. I can guarantee a voluntary society would not have that horrible '3 strikes' rule we have here in California where receiving the third felony nets you a mandatory life sentence. Has it been successful in preventing or discouraging crime? I don't know, but people are still committing felonies.
The real difference is in having a moral vs. immoral approach to crimes. For instance, if you wanted to stop smoking I could come to your house and threaten you with a butcher knife. If I find you smoking then I stab you. Would that prevent you from smoking? Would that discourage you from smoking? And would that be moral even if I did in fact effectively stopped you from smoking?
Voluntary societies would morally deal with drug addicts, jaywalkers, etc. As long as people are not hurting others, then they won't be harmed. That's the motto. We don't want to incentivize people using fear and violence. We want to do it voluntarily.

>> ^MaxWilder:

I think we're stuck on the word "prevent". Nothing can prevent crime, only discourage it and punish people who are caught committing crimes.
So the real question is: would your system do a better job discouraging people from harming one another? And when someone inevitably does, what happens when they are caught?
Currently, we have courts and police to discourage crime and attempt to punish those who commit crimes.
I see no alternative, other than vigilante justice, which in my humble opinion would suck balls. Please explain how it would be better!


Yes, "prevent" was the word @dystopianfuturetoday scrawled above as some sort of ham-fisted challenge as if there's any proof the current system prevented anything. No law (no matter the number or the severity of the draconian punishment) will prevent a crime. If it did, then today we'd have no murder, no rape, theft, etc.

Would a voluntary society discourage crime? Maybe. Who knows. If you mean discouraging the more egregious crimes like murder and rape and theft, I feel confident it would help to allow people the right to self defense by allowing them to arm themselves if they chose to do so. I can guarantee a voluntary society would not have that horrible '3 strikes' rule we have here in California where receiving the third felony nets you a mandatory life sentence. Has it been successful in preventing or discouraging crime? I don't know, but people are still committing felonies.

The real difference is in having a moral vs. immoral approach to crimes. For instance, if you wanted to stop smoking I could come to your house and threaten you with a butcher knife. If I find you smoking then I stab you. Would that prevent you from smoking? Would that discourage you from smoking? And would that be moral even if I did in fact effectively stopped you from smoking?

Voluntary societies would morally deal with drug addicts, jaywalkers, etc. As long as people are not hurting others, then they won't be harmed. That's the motto. We don't want to incentivize people using fear and violence. We want to do it voluntarily.

Maybe people laugh so they won't slit their own wrists? Kind of like how, in Iraq, I stood naked in a shower. Mortars flew in, and all I thought about was how cold it was, how my dick was shriveled, and how, this time, I was not going to lay down for safety.

The officer is one of two people. Someone who needs help---and badly. Just like an adict. Or someone who was always sick.

>> ^peggedbea:
i've got several. but this is the one i will share with you, because it disgusts me the most.
I worked the night shift, performing CT scans on patients out of the ER. A stab wound comes in, escorted by the police. While I'm working on the dude, the officer decides to tell me the HILARIOUS story of how this man got stabbed. He was beating his wife. severely. his 17 year old son with down's syndrome had enough and pulled out a steak knife, defended his mother and stabbed his dad. Then, he went up to his room and slit his own wrists. The jerk cop thought the image of a 17 year old with downs, stabbing his abusive father and then attempting suicide was HILARIOUS. he was doubled over laughing and calling the kid "corky" (and explained to me it's because they can't say "retard" over their radios). and impersonating him with his best "retard" voice and mannerisms.
Is this every cop? certainly, not.
I also dated a victim's assistance cop out of curiosity. I thought being a victim's rights advocate would make him more interesting. But I found out it only made him desensitized to some horrific things. Like, being in the medical field, i'm desensitized to blood, and poop, and vomit, and old people dying, body parts and stuff. it gives me a pretty raunchy sense of humor that probably makes some people uncomfortable.
but i never ever ever want to become desensitized to things like child rape.
I think that's the core of why people "don't like" a lot of cops. The job necessitates the abandonment of some socially appropriate emotions, thoughts and feelings. being raised by a cop, you are probably totally used to the attitude that many cops seem imbued with. being raised by hypersenstive people with mood disorders, burnt out hippies, trans gendered people and teenage drug addicts, i'm not used to the kind of world view one must have to be a cop. and i don't like it.
so yes, i've met cops who seem very awesome. i work out with a juvenile probation officer who i think is an amazing person. i don't think every cop is a socially inept dickbag. but i have certainly had more negative experiences with cops than positive ones. but i think it's for the most part, a world view issue. because i don't think MOST cops are abusive or anything.
though, i do think our criminal justice system is fucking broken and has fascist tendencies, i realize that's not the fault of anyone individual cop.
>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^Matthu:
>> ^lantern53:
If every police officer in this country acted this way, there would be armed revolution.
But these are two shitbirds out of hundreds of thousands of honest cops who risk their lives to keep the peace and try to preserve justice.
Don't judge thousands of cops on the basis of these two idiots who should be canned...or caned.
Would you like to be judged by the action of one of your co-workers?
Don't be a knee-jerk clone and try to paint all police officers by the actions of these two.

Lol... Getting so sick of hearing this bullshit copy pasta. How many videos of abusive cops need to be put up before they're considered evidence of a flawed justice system.
You're the clone, open your eyes. If police officers continue to act this way there will be an armed revolution.
And I'm not judging hundreds of thousands of cops on the basis of these two idiots. I'm judging the system which creates an unacceptable amount of abusers.

I was staying out of this until I saw this comment.
Your logic is flawed.
There are ~800,000 law enforcement officers in the U.S., you get to see one bad cop in a video every once in a while. Let's say 250 of these videos come out a year, that still leaves 799750 cops that didn't make it to youtube for doing something stupid.
It's hilarious how you call the handful of us defending police officers clones because we aren't judging them all because of a handfull of idiots. And you can try to deny it all you want, but that's exactly what you're doing.
Yes, there are idiots, and yes, those idiots don't deserve to be on the force, but that doesn't justify hating everyone who wears a badge. In my entire lifespan with my dad being a cop, I've only ever known -one- "bad" cop, and the reason he was a "bad" cop was because he commit credit card fraud. All other interactions I've ever had have been more than pleasant, including the one who pulled me over because I was driving without headlights on. She found out I was driving without a license, and because I was actually polite about it and not an ass, she let me go on the grounds that I had someone come and pick me up.
Open YOUR eyes, what interactions, if ANY, have you ever had with a cop other then watching them on youtube? I'm all ears.

i've got several. but this is the one i will share with you, because it disgusts me the most.

I worked the night shift, performing CT scans on patients out of the ER. A stab wound comes in, escorted by the police. While I'm working on the dude, the officer decides to tell me the HILARIOUS story of how this man got stabbed. He was beating his wife. severely. his 17 year old son with down's syndrome had enough and pulled out a steak knife, defended his mother and stabbed his dad. Then, he went up to his room and slit his own wrists. The jerk cop thought the image of a 17 year old with downs, stabbing his abusive father and then attempting suicide was HILARIOUS. he was doubled over laughing and calling the kid "corky" (and explained to me it's because they can't say "retard" over their radios). and impersonating him with his best "retard" voice and mannerisms.

Is this every cop? certainly, not.

I also dated a victim's assistance cop out of curiosity. I thought being a victim's rights advocate would make him more interesting. But I found out it only made him desensitized to some horrific things. Like, being in the medical field, i'm desensitized to blood, and poop, and vomit, and old people dying, body parts and stuff. it gives me a pretty raunchy sense of humor that probably makes some people uncomfortable.
but i never ever ever want to become desensitized to things like child rape.

I think that's the core of why people "don't like" a lot of cops. The job necessitates the abandonment of some socially appropriate emotions, thoughts and feelings. being raised by a cop, you are probably totally used to the attitude that many cops seem imbued with. being raised by hypersenstive people with mood disorders, burnt out hippies, trans gendered people and teenage drug addicts, i'm not used to the kind of world view one must have to be a cop. and i don't like it.

so yes, i've met cops who seem very awesome. i work out with a juvenile probation officer who i think is an amazing person. i don't think every cop is a socially inept dickbag. but i have certainly had more negative experiences with cops than positive ones. but i think it's for the most part, a world view issue. because i don't think MOST cops are abusive or anything.

though, i do think our criminal justice system is fucking broken and has fascist tendencies, i realize that's not the fault of anyone individual cop.

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^Matthu:
>> ^lantern53:
If every police officer in this country acted this way, there would be armed revolution.
But these are two shitbirds out of hundreds of thousands of honest cops who risk their lives to keep the peace and try to preserve justice.
Don't judge thousands of cops on the basis of these two idiots who should be canned...or caned.
Would you like to be judged by the action of one of your co-workers?
Don't be a knee-jerk clone and try to paint all police officers by the actions of these two.

Lol... Getting so sick of hearing this bullshit copy pasta. How many videos of abusive cops need to be put up before they're considered evidence of a flawed justice system.
You're the clone, open your eyes. If police officers continue to act this way there will be an armed revolution.
And I'm not judging hundreds of thousands of cops on the basis of these two idiots. I'm judging the system which creates an unacceptable amount of abusers.

I was staying out of this until I saw this comment.
Your logic is flawed.
There are ~800,000 law enforcement officers in the U.S., you get to see one bad cop in a video every once in a while. Let's say 250 of these videos come out a year, that still leaves 799750 cops that didn't make it to youtube for doing something stupid.
It's hilarious how you call the handful of us defending police officers clones because we aren't judging them all because of a handfull of idiots. And you can try to deny it all you want, but that's exactly what you're doing.
Yes, there are idiots, and yes, those idiots don't deserve to be on the force, but that doesn't justify hating everyone who wears a badge. In my entire lifespan with my dad being a cop, I've only ever known -one- "bad" cop, and the reason he was a "bad" cop was because he commit credit card fraud. All other interactions I've ever had have been more than pleasant, including the one who pulled me over because I was driving without headlights on. She found out I was driving without a license, and because I was actually polite about it and not an ass, she let me go on the grounds that I had someone come and pick me up.
Open YOUR eyes, what interactions, if ANY, have you ever had with a cop other then watching them on youtube? I'm all ears.

>> ^entr0py:

But, I've got to disagree with kranzfakfa that allegations of rape are somehow comparable to infidelity scandals. One is a very serious and devastating crime, the other is not a crime at all and merely embarrassing. Either the people accusing him have done something horrible, or he has done something horrible. But since he hasn't been legally accused or any evidence offered, for the time being you have to presume he's innocent.


Of course, but you missed my point. Obviously I wasn't saying that rape is a-ok. I'm saying that the accusations against Assange are derived from the knowledge that if you smear someone's private life, you deflect heat from the real problems. What better way to do that than with the A-bomb of accusations, rape. The only thing better would be to accuse him of being a pedophile (give it time). And as you said yourself, there is no evidence of anything. Its just a wild accusation being shouted a lot and very loud. The bigger the lie, a lie told a thousand times, etc. (Dammit, my second Godwin on this thread).

>> ^Yogi:

HOW DARE YOU! Hitler WAS NOT a Vegetarian! So sayeth QI so it shall be remembered!


WHAT? You can't argue with QI. My worldview is rocked. Was he at least myopic, mono-testicled and a drug addict? Oh, the disappointment!

when i was a kid we lived in what can only be described as an upper middle class crack house with cats everywhere. dozens of them. everywhere.

one day several of the non-feral outside cats turned up missing. we finally found they had all been taken to the pound on different days. 3 of them had already been put to sleep and the rest of them had contracted a nasty case of the kitty aids.

we found out it was a new neighbor down the street who had trapped them all one by one and hauled them off to the pound.

my dad was crazy. and we lived with about a dozen or so drug addicted, gender confused teens/early 20 somethings.
so........... we all exacted our revenge.

my dad had taken to sneaking onto her driveway every night with a vat of ketchup and a stuffed kitten on a noose, hanging the cat from a tree and painting the words (with kethcup) "cat murdering bitch" all over her garage door. we were all encouraged to egg and tp her house. whenever someone would pass out we would drag them into her flower bed and leave them there. my brother, who was addicted to crack at the time, pissed and shit all over front yard a few times. (she had apparently trapped our cats for messing up her flowerbed and spraying her front porch). this went on for weeks. i dont remember why it stopped and i dont recall if she ever did anything about the harrassment. but i thought it was a nice revenge story to share.

Hey again! First off, thanks so much for taking the time to reply even though things are busy for you in RL--I totally understand how that is and hope everything is going fine.

Reading over your post, it occurred to me that there are actually some things we agree on. One thing, for instance, that I think we agree on is that dogma is very, very bad. Blindly following others is never going to lead to a good situation. Forcing others to do things "because that's the way we've always done it" is unlikely to give good results either.

Since I'm pretty sure we agree on this point, let's turn to the point we disagree on. As you said, "does religion bring the good stuff?" The answer to this question I think comes partly from how we're defining religion. If we're going to define religion very narrowly as dogma--a set of prescriptive rules about behavior and practice that everyone must follow--then clearly we answered the question in the last paragraph. Dogma isn't going to bring the good stuff, no. I'm absolutely with you on that.

However, I find such a definition of religion (i.e. religion = dogma) exceedingly narrow and frankly unrealistic. When you look at churches, or temples, or synagogues, or covens, or whatever you see that religion is much more than a set of prescribed rules. All religions are composed of people, and these people interact in very complex ways with both each other, with the religion's leadership, and with whatever religious texts are used. Religion to me, then, is a complex socio-cultural phenomenon. Looking at most churches in the U.S., for example, I don't see a lot of people blindly following the Bible, nor do I see the church leadership encouraging people to blindly follow the Bible (otherwise, I think the death rate from stonings in the U.S. would be much higher than it actually is). What I do see are people coming together to help themselves, help each other, and help their communities, using the Bible as a guide (note I said guide here--I know very few people who base their decisions solely on their religious text; also I chose Christianity for this example, but really you could substitute the religion of your choice there).

Based on these observations, I'm therefore going to quote Daisaku Ikeda, a prominent Buddhist leader. He once said, "Religion exists to serve people; people do not exist to serve religion." My definition of religion therefore is a set of practices that help us grow beyond our own selfish tendencies and serve a greater good. I personally find it irrelevant whether the practices are man-made or divinely inspired so long as they get people to behave more compassionately to each other. To me, that's religion. Anyone who is acting without compassion towards another human being is not following the teachings of their own religion. And any organization that preaches hatred or violence should not be considered a religion at all. If you look at the Bible, or the Koran, or the Buddhist sutras, the overarching message you see is one of love for fellow humankind: the Golden Rule. That is religion and that is what people should be practicing.

Clearly, therefore, I think proper religious practice does bring the good stuff. But can religious practice bring the bad stuff too? Yeah. I'm not denying that. When people choose not to think critically for themselves there will always be someone willing to come along and exploit them. I also think many religious organizations have organized themselves in such a way as to, as you said, be a drain on society and hide behind the banner of religion while carrying out atrocious crimes. But as I said above, I don't really consider the people doing those things as being religious or representing "religion" per se. And as we've talked about in previous posts, I don't think that the existence of such corrupt organizations are entirely religion's fault. If people weren't blindly following their preacher, they'd be blindly following the local village idiot, or blindly their President (or, as in the case of George W. Bush, both). My view on this is that power has a tendency to corrupt; that organizations (whether they be religions, corporations, or nation-states) have a tendency to demand blind obedience; and that there are many people who will willing close their eyes and follow others blindly in order to feel even the smallest sense of security.

In your post, you accused me of downplaying the bad stuff, but I'm going to turn that argument around and suggest that you are in fact downplaying the good stuff that religion has to offer. For every example that you might choose to offer, say the Inquisition or the 9/11 terror attacks, that supposedly show why religion needs to go I can offer you a historical counter-example like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Ghandi as to why religion is crucially important. I think such arguments based on history would end in a draw. But let's go beyond historical arguments. Let's talk about the effect of ordinary people's lives--getting people to donate to charity, volunteer in their communities, help and support each other. What about the drug addicts who find that religion gives them the strength they need to break their addiction, or the prisoners who use the support system religion affords to turn their lives around? Religion inspires ordinary people to lead better, more positive lives much more often than it inspires people to go out and, say, shoot abortion doctors. The problem is, the good stories are too mundane don't make the evening news, so mostly they are anecdotal. The empirical evidence we do have, though, shows religious people live longer, happier, and healthier lives overall.

Sorry for the long post. To sum things up, I do believe that the world needs more religion as I've defined it above. It sounds to me like your main problem with religion is in fact with organized religion and its tendency to steer towards dogma and blind obedience. I actually share your feelings to some extent--as I said above, if an organization is promoting intolerance or hatred, or is imposing its will by force then I think certainly it should be dealt with swiftly and critically. If there's one thing I hope you take away from our discussions on this topic, I suppose it is that religion as a concept is much larger than just organized religion; that it can be immensely healing and an immensely beneficial force in the world. And I would really hope that you would never dismiss someone's views because they happen to be religious. It seems to me that one of the biggest problems facing the world today is that people don't listen to each other--we don't even make the effort to see the other person's point of view.

I, for my part, throughout this dialogue have tried to put myself in your shoes and see things as you do. My goal is not to make you a "religious" person, but simply, I suppose, to further the dialogue a bit and even clarify my own thoughts on the matter by putting them down in words. Thanks for being a willing discussion partner in the process.

You're not going to win converts by calling people communists.

Perhaps not, but I call it like I see it. There's no sense tip-toeing around peeps out to radically change America into fading europe via saul alinsky tactics.

I think perhaps you missed what was ironic about your comment. As far as I see it, the only reason you come here is to tell people they're idiots for not being conservatives.

What about cat videos? I rather believe I'm pointing out the follies of the left rather than singling out any particular sifter. Really dudes, do you think *I* am such a threat? The primary sifter demographic is left-wing militant atheists between ages 18 and 28. I harbor no illusions about the sift.

Granted, a lot of times you don't actually call people morons, just socialists, fascists, communists, marxists, bolsheviks, etc.

Well, writing 'Statist' all the time gets old, but that's really what we're talking about when we say "Progressive", isn't it? One who believes in social engineering via the State, at the low, low cost of individual liberty.

The thing is, I've just flat out never seen you try to treat anyone to your left with an ounce of respect.

I've had some fair discussions now and again with left-leaning sifters. The door is always open if peeps want to continue the discussion, but it's always going to be the same go-around. But it's OK to agree to disagree.

You don't have any when it comes to nationally known politicians and opinion makers, nor do you have any when it comes to the people here on Videosift.

Any popular politician or opinionist knows they're not going to be loved by everyone, nor do the smart ones much care. If you think I'm being too hard on maddow, stewart, franken, et al then take solace I find similar "arguments" against Limbaugh (drug addict!) or Palin (retarded) quite lame.

I'm sorry your personal experience wasn't up to snuff. Without looking at any past posts, I recall you as being somewhat hostile as well.

When you start the conversation with the kinds of hostility you often level at people here, they don't listen, they just shut down and get defensive.

I can't help it if they take things personally, and may I add this "charge" seems rather suspicious. Usually the "target" is in the video itself (olberman, maddow, maher, etc.) NOT other sifters.

This post wasn't meant to convince anyone of anything, just more of an outburst of exasperation and frustration, which is always a little more satisfying when done within earshot of other people.

Well, even in this thread I think I've made some good points (see Morgenthau above) and I'm not really around much these days. You've got a freakin' CROWN next to your handle and plenty of homies.

These are, unfortunately, interesting times. America remains a right-of-center nation with a 90% religious population. "Atheisift" (or "liberalsift") should welcome a little controversy.

If this will make you feel better:

A;;L ARE WRONG BUT THE RIGHWING! JE$U$ IS AMERICAN REPUBLICAN. WORSHP JE$U$!

Yep. Hear you 100%. Not only does it take guts to turn someone in, but I would even say that someone has to have cahones to admit to THEMSELVES that someone has wronged them. A great deal of my own therapy has involved attempting to actually believe (truly believe, in my core) that a certain person wronged me (consistently) when I was a child. Hence the (initial) privacy of any context of abuse, which I think is really lost in cases like this one.

But anyway, I do not think I am trying to say that "she only made the tape to expose him publicly for a hollywood public spectacle factor and that stems from, or is evidence of some kind of fame whoreness." Just the last part... I would take issue with that. I don't think she is a whore... or is even acting like a whore. What I am trying to say is that, by deferring to the whorish media as an intermediary, that she might not only be taking the gravity out of Gibson's actions, but is using similar mechanisms of public humiliation and shame to which bullies like Gibson might themselves be quick to defer. YES, such violence needs to be brought into the open, and YES Gibson should be shown as the monster he is, but (again) to expose him in such a way would seem to risk exposing Gibson the character rather than Gibson the genuinely troubled and potentially dangerous man.

>> ^peggedbea:

so, it seems you think she only made the tape to expose him publicly for a hollywood public spectacle factor and that stems from, or is evidence of some kind of fame whoreness? i can see the logic there, and perhaps it is the case.
however, as i said before, the relationship messes with your head. a lot. i never once turned my husband into the cops. not when he hit me. not when he held a knife to my throat. not when i knew he was driving around drunk with a bag of methamphetamine and i knew all i really needed to do was call the cops and he'd get locked up for a while and i could leave peacefully. not when he stole my credit cards and ran up 8k worth of debt. not when he was in a dysphoric manic fit and screaming similar things with a gun to his head. never. i think i thought it would have been some sort of betrayal to the man i married, who i was under the impression was a sweet, shy, sensitive, creative boy who loved me and my daughter but struggled with demons from a life filled with abuse and addiction (which i was hard wired from early childhood to understand and empathize with, because i was raised by the mentally ill and by drug addicts, its just how the world looked from perspective). and maybe i knew how impotent law enforcement was to help, he did after all, belong in a hospital as opposed to a jail cell. because i was close to him and i knew all this torment was mental illness, demons from his past, and the drugs he uses to self medicate because he lives every single day in unimaginable mental anguish and stress and it all comes from bad chemicals. and he could be good. 60% of the time he was at least passably decent.
i did however, tape a few of his fits. i thought i could let him listen to it later when he was calm and more rational and he would see how badly he needed help. i thought it would convince him to take his meds. i bring this up because i now know several other people who have done the same thing. you dont want them locked up, you dont want to press charges on family, because they need psychiatric help. you just want them to see how crazy they are and put down the dick pipe and take their meds. i think this is probably the more likely scenario especially since there seems to be some doubt as to whether or not she was even the one to release them. i'm not sure anyone is equipped to handle these situations well, particularly not the type of person who would be attracted to them in the first place. that's why it's called a "cycle" of abuse. i learned in a class a few years ago that only 30% of adults who were abused as children abuse their own children. i thought that was sort of hopeful and interesting. i would like to know though what percentage of adults who were abused as children end up in abusive relationships. i would bet its also somewhere around the 30% mark.
>> ^griefer_queafer:
I think you're right to react the way you have. But I honestly think that part of my frustration with this video might have been lost in what I do recognize now as a real insensitivity on my part. It is definitely easy to say that you've missed the point, because you haven't, and you have brought my attention to a whole other level of insult allowed by my comments. Plus, you are right to say that it is easy to blame the victim, because it is SOOO easy, and I have done it.
HOWEVER. While I have def. made some serious assumptions about this 'tape', I think you have also. I also feel that you have tacked on a good deal of information onto the position of both Gibson and Grigorieva. First, you don't seem willing to admit that her taping this conversation indicates a very real violation. I'm sure it sounds really 'academic' of me, but I do believe that her recording and releasing it elevates Mel's chauvinism to the level of spectacle even more so than before. You might argue that it NEEDS TO BE HEARD; that this monstrosity needs to be brought into the light. But at the end of the day, isn't there something a bit less dignified... a bit less spectacularly absurd about a court hearing and a restraining order as opposed to an audiotape? Doesn't something like this run the risk of turning his behavior into a 'product' or 'caricature' than say... a nice day in court? Wouldn't something like this run the risk even more so of having his actions digestible as some kind of ironic or absurdly funny gesture, by some asinine, pigheaded, 'middle-class', 'academic', pseudo-intellectual white boy on the internet?
So, while your outrage is rock-solid, it would seem counter-productive for me to insist I was wrong, because I believe that I am fundamentally right. I HAVE blamed a victim... but for now, its an invisible victim (unfortunately), made all the less clear by her acting that role out through the very avenues of power and control utilized by foul-mouthed, violent, and dangerous people like Gibson himself. So for now, Gibson unfortunately remains fascinating. And that is an unfortunate reality I truly believe you need to come to terms with in this context. Until he pays a very real price for his behavior, he will remain that fascinating image of horrific thoughtlessness, and will CONTINUE to represent everything that is wrong with Hollywood (for as much as it gives us). Sadly, with these kinds of videos, he continues to just play ANOTHER ROLE, thanks to the very people who would listen to his voice with very real horror, and feel justified in their disgust while at the same time refusing to see the only REAL evidence of violence ACTUALLY available to them, which in this case is really only its fucking screenplay.
I stick to my upvote, as well as my comment, all the more because of your upsetting and honest response.

>> ^peggedbea:
have you lost your mind?
a logical extension of your rant could be "i have no sympathy for this bitch who claims she was date raped, it just shows what little respect she has for herself for going somewhere with a date rapist and then being whiney enough to go to the cops about it, fuck her"
like it or not there are thousands of women stuck abusive relationships they cant get out of. i can see where the "its your own damn fault for getting into it in the first place" argument would seep into the mind of some assholes who lack perspective and experience. but speaking as someone who has been there and is speaking to you from the other side of it, there is an overwhelming amount of manipulation that goes on in the beginnings of a relationship with an abuser and in the process a very real shift in logical and your ability to think clearly happens. being a child of abuse makes you very susceptible to these kinds of relationships as your brain was wired very young to feel comfortable and tie feelings of abuse to feelings of love. after a prolonged period of time behaviors that are wildly inappropriate just become normal. on top of that you live your day to day life in survival mode, and being in perpetual survival mode robs you of your ability to THINK. and certainly of the confidence to leave. adding a baby on top of it and your brain becomes completely fried and totally warped.
admitting you let someone take this much power, and degrade you senselessly takes an incredible amount of courage. it takes an insane amount of courage and fortitude and balls to go back into the world and KEEP TRYING. how dare you chide her for this.
this shit needs to be exposed. and the stories need to be told. the more people who hear the stories of these women the less ignorant twat assholes will open their dickless middle class white boy academic internet mouths and blame the victim.
fuck you.
>> ^griefer_queafer:
Also, I have no sympathy for this woman. By releasing this tape, she is not just showing what kind of a person Gibson is--she is also showing that she has very little respect for herself by dating a person who would say these things to her. Also, I am not even sure how much this kind of thing reveals about the guy. Again, sounds like he is on drugs, or is manic, or both. Plus, from the sound of the audio, I wouldn't be surprised if she re-recorded he responses to Mel, which sound really rehearsed anyway. So... Mel is an ass, but fuck her too.

so, it seems you think she only made the tape to expose him publicly for a hollywood public spectacle factor and that stems from, or is evidence of some kind of fame whoreness? i can see the logic there, and perhaps it is the case.

however, as i said before, the relationship messes with your head. a lot. i never once turned my husband into the cops. not when he hit me. not when he held a knife to my throat. not when i knew he was driving around drunk with a bag of methamphetamine and i knew all i really needed to do was call the cops and he'd get locked up for a while and i could leave peacefully. not when he stole my credit cards and ran up 8k worth of debt. not when he was in a dysphoric manic fit and screaming similar things with a gun to his head. never. i think i thought it would have been some sort of betrayal to the man i married, who i was under the impression was a sweet, shy, sensitive, creative boy who loved me and my daughter but struggled with demons from a life filled with abuse and addiction (which i was hard wired from early childhood to understand and empathize with, because i was raised by the mentally ill and by drug addicts, its just how the world looked from perspective). and maybe i knew how impotent law enforcement was to help, he did after all, belong in a hospital as opposed to a jail cell. because i was close to him and i knew all this torment was mental illness, demons from his past, and the drugs he uses to self medicate because he lives every single day in unimaginable mental anguish and stress and it all comes from bad chemicals. and he could be good. 60% of the time he was at least passably decent.

i did however, tape a few of his fits. i thought i could let him listen to it later when he was calm and more rational and he would see how badly he needed help. i thought it would convince him to take his meds. i bring this up because i now know several other people who have done the same thing. you dont want them locked up, you dont want to press charges on family, because they need psychiatric help. you just want them to see how crazy they are and put down the dick pipe and take their meds. i think this is probably the more likely scenario especially since there seems to be some doubt as to whether or not she was even the one to release them. i'm not sure anyone is equipped to handle these situations well, particularly not the type of person who would be attracted to them in the first place. that's why it's called a "cycle" of abuse. i learned in a class a few years ago that only 30% of adults who were abused as children abuse their own children. i thought that was sort of hopeful and interesting. i would like to know though what percentage of adults who were abused as children end up in abusive relationships. i would bet its also somewhere around the 30% mark.
>> ^griefer_queafer:

I think you're right to react the way you have. But I honestly think that part of my frustration with this video might have been lost in what I do recognize now as a real insensitivity on my part. It is definitely easy to say that you've missed the point, because you haven't, and you have brought my attention to a whole other level of insult allowed by my comments. Plus, you are right to say that it is easy to blame the victim, because it is SOOO easy, and I have done it.
HOWEVER. While I have def. made some serious assumptions about this 'tape', I think you have also. I also feel that you have tacked on a good deal of information onto the position of both Gibson and Grigorieva. First, you don't seem willing to admit that her taping this conversation indicates a very real violation. I'm sure it sounds really 'academic' of me, but I do believe that her recording and releasing it elevates Mel's chauvinism to the level of spectacle even more so than before. You might argue that it NEEDS TO BE HEARD; that this monstrosity needs to be brought into the light. But at the end of the day, isn't there something a bit less dignified... a bit less spectacularly absurd about a court hearing and a restraining order as opposed to an audiotape? Doesn't something like this run the risk of turning his behavior into a 'product' or 'caricature' than say... a nice day in court? Wouldn't something like this run the risk even more so of having his actions digestible as some kind of ironic or absurdly funny gesture, by some asinine, pigheaded, 'middle-class', 'academic', pseudo-intellectual white boy on the internet?
So, while your outrage is rock-solid, it would seem counter-productive for me to insist I was wrong, because I believe that I am fundamentally right. I HAVE blamed a victim... but for now, its an invisible victim (unfortunately), made all the less clear by her acting that role out through the very avenues of power and control utilized by foul-mouthed, violent, and dangerous people like Gibson himself. So for now, Gibson unfortunately remains fascinating. And that is an unfortunate reality I truly believe you need to come to terms with in this context. Until he pays a very real price for his behavior, he will remain that fascinating image of horrific thoughtlessness, and will CONTINUE to represent everything that is wrong with Hollywood (for as much as it gives us). Sadly, with these kinds of videos, he continues to just play ANOTHER ROLE, thanks to the very people who would listen to his voice with very real horror, and feel justified in their disgust while at the same time refusing to see the only REAL evidence of violence ACTUALLY available to them, which in this case is really only its fucking screenplay.
I stick to my upvote, as well as my comment, all the more because of your upsetting and honest response.

>> ^peggedbea:
have you lost your mind?
a logical extension of your rant could be "i have no sympathy for this bitch who claims she was date raped, it just shows what little respect she has for herself for going somewhere with a date rapist and then being whiney enough to go to the cops about it, fuck her"
like it or not there are thousands of women stuck abusive relationships they cant get out of. i can see where the "its your own damn fault for getting into it in the first place" argument would seep into the mind of some assholes who lack perspective and experience. but speaking as someone who has been there and is speaking to you from the other side of it, there is an overwhelming amount of manipulation that goes on in the beginnings of a relationship with an abuser and in the process a very real shift in logical and your ability to think clearly happens. being a child of abuse makes you very susceptible to these kinds of relationships as your brain was wired very young to feel comfortable and tie feelings of abuse to feelings of love. after a prolonged period of time behaviors that are wildly inappropriate just become normal. on top of that you live your day to day life in survival mode, and being in perpetual survival mode robs you of your ability to THINK. and certainly of the confidence to leave. adding a baby on top of it and your brain becomes completely fried and totally warped.
admitting you let someone take this much power, and degrade you senselessly takes an incredible amount of courage. it takes an insane amount of courage and fortitude and balls to go back into the world and KEEP TRYING. how dare you chide her for this.
this shit needs to be exposed. and the stories need to be told. the more people who hear the stories of these women the less ignorant twat assholes will open their dickless middle class white boy academic internet mouths and blame the victim.
fuck you.
>> ^griefer_queafer:
Also, I have no sympathy for this woman. By releasing this tape, she is not just showing what kind of a person Gibson is--she is also showing that she has very little respect for herself by dating a person who would say these things to her. Also, I am not even sure how much this kind of thing reveals about the guy. Again, sounds like he is on drugs, or is manic, or both. Plus, from the sound of the audio, I wouldn't be surprised if she re-recorded he responses to Mel, which sound really rehearsed anyway. So... Mel is an ass, but fuck her too.

Hey EMPIRE, iberian backup here.

Also as a portuguese I have to say this did wonders for the drug problem. I was but a wee lad but I still remember some of the shitty, shitty, oh so shitty swaths of Lisbon infested with drug addicts. Casal Ventoso comes to mind, looking like a gigantic dung pile right as you enter Lisbon from the 25 de Abril bridge. Mind you, it's still no place to go pick flowers, but the improvement is visible.

As for myself, I lived on the ground floor of an apartment building in the middle of some projects. Next to our house was this apartment block where construction was stopped halfway. The whole thing was a concrete skeleton populated with drug addicts. It's funny now but back then I was instructed to duck into a coffee house if I suspected someone was following me on my way to school. Made me feel like a commando, good times.

Anyway, these days the whole area is cleaned up and looking quite nice (they finished the damn building) and even some of the more disruptive communities seem to have integrated well into the cultural melting pot of eternal suspicion.

As for how this relates to the US, from what I have learned watching The Wire and Fox News it seems like there is a different way of seeing drug users there. Due to the link to violent crime, it looks to me like many americans see drugs = mad, rabid, possibly angy black man criminals. And since Amurka don't negociate with no gawdamn terrarists, you are stuck in an escalation loop. And I'm sad to see that it looks like nothing but a complete crisis will break it. Since the link to violent and organized crime never fully developed over here, people still look at junkies more with pity than anything else.

tl;dr: Life is better because of this. Drug addicts are lost people and fighting them is fighting yourself.

>> ^EMPIRE:

as a portuguese, I vouch for this project.
Drug addiction is a disease. A sickness, and must be dealt with as such. Not by treating addicts as criminals, but by treating them as people in need of assistance.

as a portuguese, I vouch for this project.

Drug addiction is a disease. A sickness, and must be dealt with as such. Not by treating addicts as criminals, but by treating them as people in need of assistance.

@blankfist, you're right, I'm pathological because I thought you implied a causal link.

What was it you said again? Oh yes, it was this:

I also disagree with the welfare state because it can cause a generations of people to be lazy (from abundance to complacency). I can say that safely because I see it directly with people on a Native American reservation.

...

They learn from the previous generations to have abusive and addictive personalities. Usually that means child abuse (which happens way too much), alcoholism, drug addiction and gambling.

What did I say again?

blankfist, you mean to tell us Native Americans on reservations were once rich and industrious, but welfare checks turned them into poverty-stricken drug-addicted violent degenerates?

What is it about my comments that turns you into a big ball of personal attacks?

I mean seriously, you're coming just shy of calling me an outright liar, when I basically just asked if I was hearing you right because I found what you said so shockingly misguided, I couldn't really believe I'd read it right.

I can agree with Throbbin's contention that what we're doing with reservations is only having the effect of perpetuating a bad situation, and not doing anything to correct it; but it seems to me that there are a huge number of factors holding them back, and aid money alone is never going to fix a wide array of deep, systemic problems like you have with reservations.

But you appear to be making an altogether different argument. You seem to be saying that the situation on Native American reservations was not only caused by aid attempts, but that this is somehow analogous to the entire raft of programs that make up a modern welfare state like Denmark.

That seems crazy to me, and I can't quite believe you really think it's true. So, I asked "is this really what you think?"