Oh don't hate them for their race.Hate them for their Player Class--Gangsta,where anyone who figures out how to string a dozen words together in front of a microphone feels entitled to Phat Lootz,or they blame "the Man" for their failures and consider random acts of violence and theft their Just Retribution we somehow owe them. I can appreciate Good Music of any sort,and acknowledge the Art and Craft of its creating auible sculpture with sound and voice. However,I will say I can do so without buying into a whole subculture that thinks wearing your pants half off is a fashion statement. I don't see the Enya Posse in Blue Wold on their faces and sporting designer kilts running around(although we should!). To quote a line from Animal House "Stoned Drunk and Stupid is no way to go through life,son.",and that's what the subtext of the subculture amounts to. Flashy glamour is nice,but none of it matters in the face of Real Work and the instinctual Need to get it done. This seperates the Artist from the Mob,wanting to devote time away from a constant party and to physical and emotional labour to conjure something meaningful magical and new. Stepping back to admire the fruits of your handywork is a high no mass of shiney strangers can ever hope to beat. Someone in that Flashmob has orginizational skills...300 people is quite a turn out. Wouldn't it be Nice if they had much enthusiasm for something Positive,like a neighborhood watch? twittering about crimes happening to the police can help keep their neighborhoods safe,which are crawling with drugs and shoot outs."Yo Dawg! The Bruthah from that Bodega Shooting is here on Main Street!" Maybe if the "Hood wasn't such a Scarey Place,businesses would come in. And if they didn't feel it was their right to steal,they might find good jobs from the new businesses and earn a living instead of demanding one.

But one has to have Morals for that. I see none in that video. People who don't mind rampaging in front of a sea of security cameras.Can you convince such people to Play Nice at all,or past the point when doing the right thing inconveniences you?Do people sometimes need the threat of Guns even to keep civil? Suddenly snide remarks about Evolution suddenly make SENSE. But its SOcial Evolution at play here,and at fault. WE are Rome trying to convince a native of the Province they conquered to kindly not shit in the street. Sometimes you need clubs for that. But something tells me these people need their lives managed for them. Maybe wall up a ten block radius of a poor neighborhood,move all the families out nd let them play hip Hop as a live action video game where the bullets are real and cameras everywhere record the drama Live! The ultimate Reality TV Urban Experience fully packaged and ready for heavy merchendising! They can compete for resources and earn fabulous prizes,and hopefully only shoot themslves instead of the rest of us just trying to get on with life.


The Hip Hop experience...Unrated on Pay Per View.Visit our Website and Twitter your opinion on the utterly SICK way DJ Do Wah Ditty Diddy Dum Diddy Do had his ear shot off in the fight for the corner of 134th street and Avenue F! Log in with your SmartPhone and soak up all the sleeze with the HoodieCam!

It'll happen. You'll see. It's very Roman.

LOL... you're a good troll. Here's a game for you: please precisely define the distinction between sensory processes and cognitive processes, and how exactly DS sufferers lack the latter. Or were you just some armchair bullshitter?

Fair warning, if you really want to have this debate, I'm probably out of your league.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^dag:
I believe sentience is a gray scale that extends well into the animal kingdom.
You can judge the character of a person by how they treat those that are weaker and less capable.

I think there's an argument to be made for one or more 'sentience thresholds' where the sum of an advanced intellect's understanding of the world, sense of itself, and capacity for abstract thought places it in a very different sphere of mentality to even slightly less able minds.
It's obvious that there's a distinction between non-thinking objects and any thinking creature at all, which would be the first threshold; I claim that humanity, or perhaps only the best of humanity, has cracked another.
It's a fact that compared to humans, animal brains are disproportionately devoted to sensory processing, etc. rather than cognition; which places us orders of magnitude ahead of them in our particular province, even with brains of apparently similar complexity. So there's a real gap there, rather than a smooth progression.
We have animal brains with a little extra cognitive grey matter stapled on top. That little bit seems to make all the difference. It's exciting to think where we'll be when we're able to create a lot more cognition, either biologically or electronically.
Now all of this may not have direct implications for damaged human brains, but it informs our understanding of intelligence generally.
I feel that the error being made by say, vegetarians who claim that 'an animal has just as much right to exist as a person', and similarly sincere but misguided retard-guardians is that they fail to account for these extremely important distinctions.

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

Do you claim that there is a quantitative value of sentience? Are 100 chickens worth the life of a single human? Your rational argument breaks down into absurdity when followed to its ends. Better to err on the side of compassion and kindness towards living creatures where possible.
>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^dag:
I believe sentience is a gray scale that extends well into the animal kingdom.
You can judge the character of a person by how they treat those that are weaker and less capable.

I think there's an argument to be made for one or more 'sentience thresholds' where the sum of an advanced intellect's understanding of the world, sense of itself, and capacity for abstract thought places it in a very different sphere of mentality to even slightly less able minds.
It's obvious that there's a distinction between non-thinking objects and any thinking creature at all, which would be the first threshold; I claim that humanity, or perhaps only the best of humanity, has cracked another.
It's a fact that compared to humans, animal brains are disproportionately devoted to sensory processing, etc. rather than cognition; which places us orders of magnitude ahead of them in our particular province, even with brains of apparently similar complexity. So there's a real gap there, rather than a smooth progression.
We have animal brains with a little extra cognitive grey matter stapled on top. That little bit seems to make all the difference. It's exciting to think where we'll be when we're able to create a lot more cognition, either biologically or electronically.
Now all of this may not have direct implications for damaged human brains, but it informs our understanding of intelligence generally.
I feel that the error being made by say, vegetarians who claim that 'an animal has just as much right to exist as a person', and similarly sincere but misguided retard-guardians is that they fail to account for these extremely important distinctions.

>> ^dag:

I believe sentience is a gray scale that extends well into the animal kingdom.
You can judge the character of a person by how they treat those that are weaker and less capable.


I think there's an argument to be made for one or more 'sentience thresholds' where the sum of an advanced intellect's understanding of the world, sense of itself, and capacity for abstract thought places it in a very different sphere of mentality to even slightly less able minds.

It's obvious that there's a distinction between non-thinking objects and any thinking creature at all, which would be the first threshold; I claim that humanity, or perhaps only the best of humanity, has cracked another.

It's a fact that compared to humans, animal brains are disproportionately devoted to sensory processing, etc. rather than cognition; which places us orders of magnitude ahead of them in our particular province, even with brains of apparently similar complexity. So there's a real gap there, rather than a smooth progression.

We have animal brains with a little extra cognitive grey matter stapled on top. That little bit seems to make all the difference. It's exciting to think where we'll be when we're able to create a lot more cognition, either biologically or electronically.

Now all of this may not have direct implications for damaged human brains, but it informs our understanding of intelligence generally.

I feel that the error being made by say, vegetarians who claim that 'an animal has just as much right to exist as a person', and similarly sincere but misguided retard-guardians is that they fail to account for these extremely important distinctions.

>> ^kymbos:

This is fascinating. Is the fundamental religious critique of presidents focussed on their interpersonal behaviour because God is deciding on their policies and those aren't up for debate?
Maybe God is making Obama 'rude' to people too - should you be judging that?


The policies are up to debate, especially those which contradict Gods word, however the man himself should be respected. I don't have to agree with him, but I respect him because God put him there (and also because he is a human being made in the image of God). There is a good example of that from scripture regarding Daniels friends..you can see that even though they did not agree with the Kings policy, and were sentenced to death, they still treated him with honor and humility (because his authority was ordained by God):

Daniel 3:14-30

Nebuchadnezzar answered and said to them, “Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image that I have set up? Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, to fall down and worship the image that I have made, well and good.c But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?”

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king.d But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”

Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with fury, and the expression of his face was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. He ordered the furnace heated seven times more than it was usually heated. And he ordered some of the mighty men of his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. Then these men were bound in their cloaks, their tunics,e their hats, and their other garments, and they were thrown into the burning fiery furnace. Because the king’s order was urgent and the furnace overheated, the flame of the fire killed those men who took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell bound into the burning fiery furnace.

Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and rose up in haste. He declared to his counselors, “Did we not cast three men bound into the fire?” They answered and said to the king, “True, O king.” He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the door of the burning fiery furnace; he declared, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come out, and come here!” Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out from the fire. And the satraps, the prefects, the governors, and the king’s counselors gathered together and saw that the fire had not had any power over the bodies of those men. The hair of their heads was not singed, their cloaks were not harmed, and no smell of fire had come upon them. Nebuchadnezzar answered and said, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set asidef the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God. Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is no other god who is able to rescue in this way.” Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon.

It's never a all of nothing...

Do I agree that, in the best or worlds, education should be free. Absolutely.

Do I think that, in the financial situation this province is in, it's realistic to protest against a tuition hike that still will make it (one of) the lowest tuition in North America? Absolutely not.

We have a bunch of problems to solve - including waste government spending etc...and I'd love nothing better than to have a free education system...but as it is, we have the highest income tax rate in Canada (probably North America), we have debt issue, health system issues, etc. It just is not realistic at this point.

Have a little protest to make your point, and move on. Get some concession to have a bit better bursaries to help those students that need it, sure. Have a 200k protest where you jam up everybody during rush hour, close bridges, etc...I'm sorry, that justs feels like first world problems to me.

Do I have any evidence or polling about who agrees with the protesters...no. That's just based on what you hear on the street/news - which isn't scientific, of course...but I'd bet that there's a greater likelihood that it's the correct situation than not.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Tokoki:
Students protesting about tuition hikes...when they have the cheapest tuition in all of North America!
Typically, when a group is protesting about something, you find a decent part of the general population that agrees with them. In this particular case...pretty much everyone here agrees that they're out in left field on this - including most of the other students who were actually trying to go to school.

Ummm why would you think this? Just because it's cheaper there than it is in America doesn't make it right. Higher education like community colleges should be free. Mexico has free state schools that are comparable to American ones across the border...yet they're free in a poor country and in a rich country they'r not. Does that seem right?
Also why not present some evidence or polling about who does and doesn't agree with these protesters.

Thailand based on the western B with vertical strike-through for baht -- and Dag called it, it is roti which you can get with fruit and condensed milk.

From what I know, roti was originally introduced to Thailand through Muslims in the far south provinces, and was originally from India and Pakistan. By now, it is quite popular all through Thailand -- but the best roti shops/stands are usually owned by Islamic families, even up in Northern Thailand where I live. Islam is the second largest religion in the country; I usually see the population here described as 95% Buddhist, 4% Muslim, 1/2% Christian, and 1/2% other.

People were tweeting the location of checkstops here, and the cops asked them to stop. The next day the neighbouring province said that they welcomed the tweets as it simply raised awareness, which was their ultimate goal.

>> ^lsue:

Well I have to say that I disagree with you regarding your stance on late term abortions. I don't believe it should be criminal (for either doctor or patient) to undertake a medical procedure which concerns your own health and well-being. The point of the removal of laws against abortion is to decriminalize, not to encourage late term abortions or make them commonplace. What good would criminalization do?
But regardless of this disagreement, I felt that your first comment describing Canada's lack of abortion legislation "right up until the last second before birth" largely simplifies a complex issue and undermines the regulations which exist to get women the proper care when they need it (early in their pregnancy). This is why I replied.. I didn't mean to provoke an argument.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> Criminal laws on/against abortion are a federal matter though. And Canada has for some time now very clearly established that there is NO LAW against abortions. Current Canadian federal law in ALL provinces and territories makes all abortion, even up to 9 months, perfectly and completely legal.



But criminal law is an enormous part of the entire debate. Currently in Canada, it is perfectly and 100% legal to kill a fetus 1 hour before going in for a c-section. It is equally and completely 100% illegal, and considered one of the highest crimes in the nation to kill that exact same baby 2 hours later once the c-section has been completed. I say that's madness and more than just a little bit troubling.

I think you are far to quick to dismiss that situation as irrelevant or unimportant.

Well I have to say that I disagree with you regarding your stance on late term abortions. I don't believe it should be criminal (for either doctor or patient) to undertake a medical procedure which concerns your own health and well-being. The point of the removal of laws against abortion is to decriminalize, not to encourage late term abortions or make them commonplace. What good would criminalization do?

But regardless of this disagreement, I felt that your first comment describing Canada's lack of abortion legislation "right up until the last second before birth" largely simplifies a complex issue and undermines the regulations which exist to get women the proper care when they need it (early in their pregnancy). This is why I replied.. I didn't mean to provoke an argument.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> Criminal laws on/against abortion are a federal matter though. And Canada has for some time now very clearly established that there is NO LAW against abortions. Current Canadian federal law in ALL provinces and territories makes all abortion, even up to 9 months, perfectly and completely legal.

>> ^lsue:

It's a little more complicated then this - rules and access vary provincially. In Alberta, for example, good luck finding a clinic which will preform an abortion past 20 weeks.
"Who Performs Late Term Abortions:
Hospitals and some clinics in Canada perform abortions on request up to about 20 weeks, and a
few centres do abortions up to 22 or 23 weeks. However, most of the very small number of
abortions performed over 20 weeks gestation in Canada are done to protect the woman’s physical
health, or because of serious fetal abnormalities. Such problems cannot be discovered until an
amniocentesis test is done on the fetus later in pregnancy. Rare abortions after 22 or 23 weeks
gestation are also done in Canada for some cases of lethal fetal abnormalities, where the fetus
cannot survive after birth.
Since abortion services after 20 weeks are not always readily accessible in all parts of Canada,
women are sometimes referred to clinics in the United States (Kansas, Washington State, and
Colorado). Such procedures and associated expenses may be funded in full or part by some
provincial governments."
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^EMPIRE:
he mentions a woman possibly coming into the ER 7 months pregnant after having been raped. Is it even possible, legally, to get an abortion at such a late stage? At 7 months, that is pretty much a formed baby. I mean... there have been cases of premature babies with a lot less than 7 months of development.

In Canada it's legal right up until the very last second before birth. And heaven forbid anyone in our country discuss that might be too far, you'll be branded some woman hating neo-con trying to remove the rights of everyone who isn't a white male.




Criminal laws on/against abortion are a federal matter though. And Canada has for some time now very clearly established that there is NO LAW against abortions. Current Canadian federal law in ALL provinces and territories makes all abortion, even up to 9 months, perfectly and completely legal.

The suicide rate at Foxconn is much lower than the rate in China. So if you make apple ipads, you are actually LESS likely to kill yourself than the general population.

You are forgetting that for a relatively uneducated chinese person from a rural province, life is harsh. A gig at a Foxconn factory is hard, but there are much worse options out there.>> ^coolhund:

Enough that they dont kill themselves...

>> ^longde:

I agree with most of your points, except that a toothless UN resolution has any material affect on what is going on in Syria.>> ^bcglorf:
@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.
You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.

On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.
The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.
What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?
First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.
As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.
"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."



I'll quite readily agree that virtually everything the UN does is toothless and in that sense, completely worthless and meaningless. I would however argue that the Russian and Chinese vetoes absolutely do have a material affect on what is going on in Syria. The vetoes are sign of the depth of Russian and Chinese commitment to Assad's regime. That support is absolutely vital and essential to Assad's continued military campaign against his own people. Without that support, the combined efforts of the Arab League and the Syrian opposition would be seeing Assad forced to back down.

I agree with most of your points, except that a toothless UN resolution has any material affect on what is going on in Syria.>> ^bcglorf:

@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.
You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.

On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.
The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.
What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?
First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.
As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.
"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."

@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.

You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.


On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.

The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.

What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?

First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.

As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.

"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."