>> ^smooman:
atheists like dawkins are no different than the religious who think he's an immoral, dirty, baby eating sinner that he talks down to.
what's really off putting about dawkins is that he thinks he's smarter, more evolved, and better looking than me because i'm NOT an antheist all while "preaching" how intolerant the religious are. How is that any different than if i were to think that i am more righteous, just, and compassionate than dawkins because he's NOT a christian?(ps: i dont think that)
it isnt.
i just hate interviews and videos like this i guess. where's the dialogue? wheres the discourse? theyve been substituted for a pissing contest


My mind implodes as I try and understand how you linked atheists to fundamentalists, until I realise you are not being fair.

Dawkins swatted away attempts to evade/sugercoat, and got a British muslim to staunchly state that Shaira law is clear - leave islam = death. And more telling, was the British muslim seemed to have no problem with human rights violations and the general hypocrisy of islam...because it was islam.

I saw an interesting exposure of islamic hypocrisy, but you became fixated with the stance Dawkins had to adopt to get the facts.

Is such a passive/"dont rock the boat" attitude really what you want?

>> ^westy
You all realize that this man didn't kill, rape, molest, or even touch a kid right? All he did was take a hard drive which he owns, and program a series of 1's and 0's into it.

Taking a picture isn't illegal (freedom of the press?). However, abducting a kid, forcing them to strip in your house...etc...well that would be illegal and those 1s and 0s would then become evidence. Heres where you argument is wrong: you are at a baseball game filming the next batter, and all of a sudden a streaker runs out on the field. You later find out he was 17 and now you are a pedophile. Sorry but taking pictures isn't (shouldn't be) a crime.

Why do you think its legal for parents to take naked pictures of their babies in the bathub?

"in short the only time something should be illegal is if it dose significant harm to others and yourself or takes away others or your own basic freedoms. "

I agree with you 100% here, but I don't see how that is consistent with what you are saying above. Arresting someone for their contents of their hard drive is like making it illegal to draw or write certain phrases or pictures on your own paper, with your own ink. Theres really just no way such a law wouldn't be a human rights violation.

I would go further and say it's almost impossible NOT to screw up with American nation building. My point on Iraq is not that nation building there was sure to work. If anything, it was almost certainly doomed to the horrific failures we've been watching over the last years. My point was that spending those same years under Saddam's rule would've been worse, more and more as each year goes by. The majority of the problems in Iraq regarding infrastructure and the economy didn't start with the American invasion, but with Saddam's continuing construction of new palaces while sanctions starved the rest of the country. The reason the riots and mis-content America faced from the public hadn't boiled out when Saddam was in power was entirely a testament to the fear he had sown in people. If you were suspected of questioning Saddam, you might find the police knocking on the door the next day and handing you a video of your daughter being raped by them.


I'm also more than a little concerned that the country is going to dissolve about 15 minutes after the last troops leave.


Me too, but I'm confident that at least the Kurdish region will make out alright. I'm also hopeful the interest they show in working with the rest of the country will help keep it stable. In either event though I find it hard to imagine an Iraq that is worse than it was under Saddam.


To a large extent I think America needs to rethink the way it uses military power in modern times. Specifically, this idea that any trouble spot in the world should be dealt with by invasion and US-led regime change.
...
I definitely think going through the UN for problems of that scale is a good idea


I agree that America needs to be extremely careful with it's use of it's power. I also feel though that if America is never willing to use that power, then many nations are going to start acting that way. Look how many instances there are of nations that ignore all UN warnings, condemnations and rebukes over human rights violations and atrocities, content in the knowledge that it is all bark. For every wrong step America has made with military action you can point to an atrocity that went unchecked by inaction as well. In the line that needs to be walked between when to act and when not to, Iraq is an example of a fight that was put off too long, rather than jumped into too soon.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I think we ended up getting lucky with Iraq. I don't think it's a testament to how it's somehow impossible to screw up with American nation building, I think it's a testament to how expensive in terms of both money and lives it can be, even when the country is theoretically low-hanging fruit in terms of nation building.

I'm also more than a little concerned that the country is going to dissolve about 15 minutes after the last troops leave.

I do want us more active in Sudan, but not militarily. I still think the fix for Sudan is for America to use its diplomatic ties to encourage China to stop supporting the Sudanese massacre.

I'm less certain of what to do about Congo. I certainly don't want us to roll in there with troops and tanks and tell them we're going to "help" them establish a stable government.

To a large extent I think America needs to rethink the way it uses military power in modern times. Specifically, this idea that any trouble spot in the world should be dealt with by invasion and US-led regime change. I didn't like us doing that during the Cold War, and I like it even less now.

I definitely think going through the UN for problems of that scale is a good idea. I don't think that means giving the UN a veto over US actions, but I definitely think we should be extremely careful about when and where we "go it alone."

For the moment, I think America's plate is past full. If the world comes to us begging for help, we should help, but I don't think we should be shopping for new places to invade, we should be getting disentangled from the countries we're currently in.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I find the argument of 'why not country x' to be completely lacking in relevance. I'm not arguing that America chose to remove Saddam because it made the world a better place, especially for Iraqi's. I'm arguing that for whatever unknowable reasons America really chose to remove Saddam, that an Iraq free of Saddam is better for the region and the Iraqi people. So much better in fact that you'd be hard pressed to screw such a war up badly enough to make things worse when you were done. Now the Bush admin certainly tried very hard to screw it up, but thanks in large part to the Kurds the situation in Iraq today IS much brighter than it would have been with Saddam still in power.

Would it be 'better' if America had put the same effort into Sudan or the DR Congo? Maybe, the atrocities in the Congo shock the conscience, but it would also be harder to stabilize than even post-Saddam Iraq. I find it hard to use that as an argument against what America did in Iraq. To play that argument out in a fair way, I would point the finger at the whole 1st world and blame them all for doing nothing to help the people of Sudan and the DR Congo. I would give a slight nod to the Americans though in understanding that they were tied up in Iraq and that their actions there had at least helped a different humanitarian disaster.

I feel both sides have very valid points, and I can often see myself moving between the two. The fine line they are arguing over is important, and worth arguing. I feel it is an issue of chicken or the egg. The reality is that both evolved simultaneously; western intervention and religious fundamentalism. We need share education with Islamic communities not bombs and hold everyone responsible for human rights violations.

No one asked Bush (or any other president for that matter) to get involved. This is a humanitarian issue and an internal issue. This is a call for solidarity with people of Iran which have their human rights violated at unprecedented scale.

The sad part is that US can’t even tell Iran not to torture, because they lost the high ground with Bush/Chaney torturing detainees against Geneva Conventions.

We can’t do anything when China suppresses Tibetans or Uighurs. We can’t do anything when US violates human rights in Iraq with an illegal war. We can only appeal to the human condition and spread our disgust with this type of government actions. Otherwise everybody’s rights starts to evaporate globally.

>> ^gorillaman:
Legalise and tax it people make me want to puke blood. It's my fucking money you're bribing the fascists with, "oh please sir, please let us have our rights back, we'll pay you."

I don't care if they tax it up the wazoo, once it's legal the price should go down, so it's not like pot-heads will be going broke.

I would be a little miffed if they maintained laws restricting people from growing their own.


I hope that when cannabis is eventually decriminalised, all you people who agree with me that prohibition is a human rights violation will join me in calling for the deaths of all the cops who enforced these immoral laws.


Wow, bit much don't ya think? How about while we're at it we hang every soldier that went to Iraq?

Don't you suppose it's time to just simply stop punishing people for drugs altogether?

Legalise and tax it people make me want to puke blood. It's my fucking money you're bribing the fascists with, "oh please sir, please let us have our rights back, we'll pay you."

I hope that when cannabis is eventually decriminalised, all you people who agree with me that prohibition is a human rights violation will join me in calling for the deaths of all the cops who enforced these immoral laws.

The Second Chechen War, in a later phase better known as the War in the North Caucasus, was launched by the Russian Federation starting August 26, 1999, in which Russian federal forces largely recaptured the separatist region of Chechnya.

The Second Chechen War was started in response to the Invasion of Dagestan by the IIPB, and the Russian apartment bombings which Russia blamed on Chechen separatists, although no evidence linking Chechens with the bombings has been released to the public. The campaign largely reversed the outcome of the First Chechen War, in which the region gained de facto independence as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. Although it is regarded by many as an internal conflict within the Russian Federation, the war attracted a large number of Jihadist foreign fighters.

During the initial campaign, Russian military and pro-Russian Chechen paramilitary faced Chechen separatists in open combat, but eventually seized the Chechen capital Grozny in February 2000 after a winter siege. Russia established direct rule of Chechnya in May 2000 and after the full-scale offensive, Chechen guerrilla resistance throughout the North Caucasus region continued to inflict heavy Russian casualties and challenge Russian political control over Chechnya for several more years. Some Chechen rebels also carried out terrorist attacks against civilians in Russia. These terrorist attacks, as well as widespread human rights violations by Russian and rebel forces, drew international condemnation.

Russia has severely disabled the Chechen rebel movement, although violence still occurs throughout the North Caucasus. Large-scale fighting has been replaced by guerrilla warfare and bombings targeting federal troops and forces of the regional government, with the violence more often spilling over into adjacent regions since 2005. The exact death toll from this conflict is unknown, yet estimates range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands dead or missing, mostly civilians in Chechnya. No clear figures for Russian losses are known to the public. In spite of its large amount of casualties, both Chechen wars remain largely unpublicized abroad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War

>> ^joedirt:
mharvey, you are either a good troll or you like remaining ignorant.
I recommend this post which has some illustrative graphs and links to show Israel breaking the peace.

JoeDirt, I'm no troll. I see things very differently than you. Ignorance is not one of my vices. Perhaps you need to recognize that reasonable people can disagree (strongly) on some issues.

I checked out your graph, and am not impressed. As Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." This looks to be both.

The group that produced the webpage and graph is B'Tselem, a Liberal advocacy group in Israel which seems a bit like the ACLU is here. In other words, an enemy of the society which hosts it.

Their stated mission is, "to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B'Tselem

They start with an agenda, and not surprisingly, manufacture proof that their presuppositions are correct.

To my knowledge, the Palestinian leadership has never made an honest peace (going back to Arafat), but will frequently agree to a hudna in order to regroup and strengthen.

>> ^volumptuous:
^ Methinks you should get your ass to Iraq since you love dead kids so much.
CP420 apparently doesn't give one shit about what the Iraqis think, or want. He just wants more war, more bloodshed, and more US imperialism. The concept of Iraqis wanting the US the fuck out of their country, doesn't phaze the Cap'n here. Imperialism, domination and blood are the only things that bring a smile to his face.

And sorry. But I would have a history-lesson-off with you any day of the week. If there is one bit of foreign policy and history that I'm a "buff" on, it's Mesopotamia, biznitch. I'd wipe the floor with you quicker than you can say Gertrude Bell. (as cp420 scrambles to wikipedia)


I'll take that as non-responsive since you resorted to cursing and name calling with no factual rebuttal. So you admired Hussein boy Sr. and his human rights violations? That's really great. OTOH, I like it when people can defend themselves.

Ya know that you've really fucked up when China get's to call you out on human rights violations America... X D

>> ^burdturgler:
@^imstellar28:

No, I admit I'm fucking stupid for even talking to you. And after this I'm correcting that. The math isn't the point. I still think 50 negative comments is enough. Hell you're 30% of the way there right now. If 50 doesn't work then what? 100? The troll that was the impetus behind this post is over 90% on their way to that.
It's not really the point though, to be honest. It's about the troll taking a look at their own behavior and the community reactions to it. Like I said, if you find yourself with that many down voted comments (as you and the other troll do) then maybe this isn't the right site for you.
Here's some math for ya, in the last four days, seven out of the nine comments you've made have been on this post. Is this what's fun for you?


No offense, but if you are stupid, you were that way before you started talking to me. As far as my 7 out of 9 last posts occurring in this thread--it is just evidence of how much this new vibe I'm getting here is turning me off to contributing content to this community. If the only place I am posting on this site, is in a thread critical of the site maybe that should tell you something. Clearly the neurons failed to connect A to B. I can't spell out everything for people incapable or unwilling to read between the lines or even read the lines at anything other than skin-deep. It has nothing to do with math and everything to do with philosophy.

To answer your question, no. Posting about trolls is not "fun" to me. If you look at my videos and comments, most of my time is spent arguing against oppression and human rights violations. To have to deal with the same philosophical flaws here is extremely disappointing.

I post here as an intellectual outlet, but I've debated with only handful of posters here. Unfortunate for me, but I'm not complaining. The number of people interested in the same subjects of discussion as me are few and far in between. If I can manage to enjoy myself in a population of less than 1% maybe you should grow up and learn to enjoy yourself in 99% of the population.

And so you don't get confused...1% or less of people here could be considered "trolls" while 1% or less people here take an active, non-superficial interest (from what I've seen) in fundamental human rights. Again, maybe you don't connect these things together but after pointing it out, can you not see a parallel between an oppresive governmental response and a regulatory response here? And no I am not a conspirator because I am able to draw parallels. Offline, if there is a danger/issue/problem some new law/rule/regulation is put into affect in attempt to correct it. Nobody is willing to take personal responsibility, or to try to address the root cause, they think they can force the solution by restricting personal freedom. Just because people are free to visit the site or not, does not mean this site can not be oppressive.

Yes, trolls are unwanted in a community--but that as an issue for the community (read: peers of equal power). Every new rule you create is going to be manipulated as a tool by the very people it was intended to guard against. If you ban people based on comment downvoting, trolls will just downvote everyone banning the whole site. If you put a time limit on it, they will just do it slowly. The best defense against it is a social one--through ostracization, de-motivation, and personal tolerance. Any regulatory action will be negative. If this site was meant for trolls, then so it is, that is the nature of this site and nothing is going to change it. To do so is to force a cow to lay eggs. not. gonna. happen.

holy crap, 14 downvotes.....what will happen when i post a vid of young male jewish settlers throwing rocks at old palistinan ladies.... did you guys know that the jewish guy who was the head protecting the holy black sea scriptures, from being shown to anyone but very few people, deannounced his religion as soon he reached retirement. when asked why, he said it was because he had realized his religon was about racism, and nothing else. nothing else!!!!! he added that he would never ever have anything to do with judism. no wonder why nothing from the scriptures has been made public. not a single word. and it kinda confirms to me that the human right violations the state of isreal have showed towards palistinians the last 60 yrs are not to end until the last palistinian has left the area.....im i allowed to say this? this is anti-jewish-something....i guess. will i get sued? death-threats?

here is a little uplifting reading from a holy book: http://wake-up-america.net/from_the_jewish_holy_book__the_t.htm

^ At the risk of really skewing us off on a tangent, do you agree with RP on immigration (no amnesty, and "whatever it takes" to physically secure the border)?

Where are you (and RP) on cutting barriers to free trade, bearing in mind human rights violations in other countries like China?

>> ^NetRunner:
@GeeSussFreeK, you sure sound like a Bush fan.
I think that he probably should've come home from China sooner.
I think that he probably shouldn't have made assurances to Georgia that we would protect them from Russia before fighting broke out.
I think he should at least mention that Georgia started the fight.
I think he shouldn't start off with accusations of a potential escalation that didn't happen, and then instead of using the usual "The United States condemns the actions of Russia", says "Invading a sovreign country is unacceptable in the 21st Century".
I think rather than letting Condi finish out her vacation, he should tell her that her country needs her to be in Moscow, ASAP.
He doesn't mention it in this video, but I think we should stop pushing the idea of Georgia joining NATO for the moment (something Bush/McCain express a need for in other statements).
Toothless outrage followed by a mumbling of diplomacy is exactly the wrong message to be sending. It should be diplomacy first, with a mumbling about standing for our allies if necessary.
Bush isn't Clinton. Setting my bar as low as it will go, I will say at least Clinton avoided committing human rights violations during his 8 years, while Bush seems to have gotten rolling with them in 2002, and hasn't looked back since.
If you meant to compare George H.W. Bush with Clinton, I think that's pretty fair, since they were both pretty moderate and capable (while still managing to piss off people from the other political party).


Let me more precise then. I dislike bush and his bending of the constitution to the highest degree. Of all the presedents of my life time, no one has expanded the policing powers of the government more than he. With that bias in the clear, let me retort some of these things, and agree with you on others.

I also think he should of come home from China sooner. Even more so since he pleagded support. However, in that, NATO does not accept members with territorial disputes, and as long as this still has the PR of a territorial despute, his hands are tied.

The jury is still out on who fired first, and you will never really know who it was. Why are Russia claims more valid than Georgian ones?

Invading a sov sovreign country was the grounds of the first gulf war with had support from the UN and a large portions of the nations of the world united and fought against, this being the same kind of situation would tend to suggest the same kind of action could be warrented.

Yes, I also agree that condi should be in moscow ASAP. It is his call, he knows more about the details then we do, so I can't be to desisive on my own opinion.

I don't see why he should stop talking about them joining NATO. It would seem they need protection from large powers more than ever? Why do you think they should take this off the table, and don't you think that would undermine our position of loyalty to the Georgians in their minds of us?

I think the leasons from the cold war need to be explained again. Always come out bold, then digress later. Even Kenedy knew the most ancient rule of nation states, never apear weak or your enimies will take advantage. Taking a strong stand by your allies IS a diplomatic method of resolution that workd for 50 years in the cold war till Russia evaporated.

Your right, bush isn't Clinton, that was a poor analagy as to the president can't stop doing his job because of something. And I would say I hate bush's evaporation of the rights of america far more than lusting after the ladies.

However, I don't see this as a mistake or any kind for the prez to react in this way. In fact, I was hoping it would happen sooner than it did.


edit: BTW. I hope none of this comes off as condicending, I always appriticate anothers point of view.