Sounds like a very large simplification for something. You can't honestly think that the reaction was due to one single incident? And if you're sensible enough to realise that, are you genuinely suggesting that the black community is appropriately represented in prison and crime statistics?

Try and avoid racism when you reply.

I think you're living in a dream world. The abolition of slavery is only a generation removed, do you really think that many of these people have had the same opportunities as you have? Whether it be by design, by accident or what have you? I imagine your close ancestors were allowed to accumulate property and status in a way that their ancestors weren't.

That's not a recommendation for guilt, merely that unless you've lived their life in their world you have absolutely no idea what it's like, and you will only ever understand childhood and development (which form your opinions and beliefs) from your own perspective. So don't be too quick to judge others for their situation. I'd like to see how you fared if you grew up in the same environment.

You make it sound so simple to vote for black people... as though it's that simple, as though the democratic system in USA and UK alike isn't riddled with corruption, where money is power, and everyone is opposed to changing the status quo? How many of those in power know what life is like in a black community, to know what the problems are and how deep the divide runs between them and the councillors for their place of residence? ... I've got so many criticisms i don't know where to begin. You've got some points, but they're buried.

Good points, Redsky.

However, there hasn't been nearly enough research on the effects of rehabilitation to claim that it consistently reduces recidivism. You mention Scandinavian countries in particular. How many of those rehabilitated prisoners were guilty of violent crimes? If you want to reduce recidivism, the death penalty will offer guaranteed results.

As for the U.S.'s murder rates, they aren't the highest among first-world countries. Higher than European countries, sure, but Europe is tiny. Russia is more comparable to the size of the U.S. and it has almost double the murder rate. China claims to have a 1.0 but I'd question the reliability of any data provided by that government.

I'm also pretty sure that most criminals recognize the severity of their crimes. If they aren't insane, they'll know that jaywalking will result in a far lesser penalty than murder. What it comes down to is risk versus reward. If breaking the law is the most convenient way of getting what they want and the likelihood of them getting caught is low, they'll break the law. That's rational behavior. It's the reason why people people slow down when they see a cop on the freeway instead of speeding like they would normally do. It's the reason why people won't hesitate to download a pirated movie but would think twice before trying to steal a movie from Best Buy. If someone wants to rob a liquor store and they see a cop inside, they will most likely not rob that particular liquor store. Not all criminals are psychotic murderers. On the contrary, most criminals are perfectly sane and break the law on a regular basis. They just make sure that the risks are low enough so they don't get caught.

Severe penalties mean nothing if they aren't enforced and increasing surveillance increases the likelihood of enforcement. Increasing surveillance wouldn't be cheap but then, rehabilitating criminals isn't cheap either. Getting rid of the prison system entirely and replacing it with efficient executions (nothing overly elaborate like lethal injections) would cut costs dramatically and allow for greatly expanded surveillance and enforcement, in addition to dramatically increasing the risk for any given crime. If the penalty for speeding was death and there were more cops patrolling the roads and freeways, I guarantee 99.9% of drivers would stop speeding. There's no hard data for this, of course, but that's because no country has ever attempted it.

Venezuela currently has over ten times the murder rate of the U.S. It was the first country in the world to abolish the death penalty. Now, the country is riddled with corruption. Laws have no meaning because they are not enforced so criminals do whatever they want without fear of reprisal.

That's odd. I thought a conversation through comments where my position was explained clearly, then yours was WAS a discussion....what do you call it?
I'm still waiting for that one example where the 'joke' is at no one and nothing's expense.
Explain why an object can't be the object of ridicule...or a fictional character.
You didn't read...I wrote it's at the expense of the stick, being compared to a turd, AND the reader/listener, who can't tell the difference.
What's black and white and eats like a horse IS a riddle, just a bad one. Explain how it's not if you don't think it is. If you didn't understand my explanation, that's not the same as me not offering one. Read again please.
Because you are complicit in fooling yourself does not make you less the fool. I say you ARE laughing at your own expense, at your foolishness for being misled (so easily, even intentionally by yourself).
Magic isn't shadenfreude, but laughing at the bad magician is. Clowning is ALL about shadenfreude.
Wow, you are bending over backwards there...you ARE certainly laughing at the expense of the clown...because he wants it that way. It's still laughing at his looking the fool. Because he accepts the expense (of being foolish) doesn't mean it does not exist. You're arguing ridiculous semantics and missing the point.
I have still not seen anything that doesn't meet my definition, things that make you laugh are at something's expense (even if that thing accepts the expense freely). You may not see it, but I think that's because you won't analyze it beyond the surface.
I did say essentially that, read again please.... I said "As I see it, all humor is schadenfreude (enjoyment taken from the misfortune of someone (or something) else. )" Your lack of empathy for other's points of view does not make it less so to me, and you have yet to convince me otherwise. I even gave a popular reference for that way of thinking, 'stranger in a strange land'.
When I first read the stick 'joke', I laughed at MYSELF for being duped...same with ET...I laughed at the mathematician poking himself in the asshole (in my mind) and myself for the thought. In the final analysis, the joke was on ME for most of those 'jokes'...and I'm fine with that, not offended, that was not what I said. I said the joke is at "x's" expense, sometimes that "X" is the listener. EDIT: sometimes the expense is infinitesimal and barely or not noticed.
Wow, you really don't understand humor? It was a joke, at your and my expense, about your statement "I'm so confused by your request for proof that i feel like someone's asked me "Air? What air? There's no air, i can't see any!"" That would make sense if the asker was under water, no? It was meant to show why someone might say that, and how the misunderstanding could be on either side of the 'joke'. Too 'deep'?
EDIT: And why you gotta talk crap about my face?!? I can't help how I look!
(have you somehow convinced yourself that your comments weren't snide?)

Firstly i'd like to say that it's clear to me you're not interested in discussing this, but rather somehow interested in some sort of conflict. I'm not, and i spent a good while thinking about my post before making it; your suggestion that i didn't read your post is soundly rejected. Possibly you didn't read or acknowledge the content of your own post because you have forced yourself into a position where all i have to do is show one single example of something being funny at the expense of no one or nothing to prove you wrong and now you have to be rude (the first sign you know your position is indefensible) and provide little to no justification of any of your numbered points (because you know they are weak).

I'll be honest, i'm not going to entertain suggestions that a joke can be at the expense of an inanimate object or fictional character. Between that and your distinctly shoddy arguments I think you're trolling.

A joke at the expense of a stick? At the expense of a fictional character? ET is not something or someone. It doesn't exist, it is a construct of our imagination and does not have physical form. It isn't even a "thing" (if i say that unicorns are arrogant bastards, does that make me xenophobic? They don't exist, but if ET can suffer jocular expense, unicorns can suffer expense at my comment also. I hate martians too, they're all short, ugly, grey bastards. Am i a racist now?). The zebra thing isn't actually a riddle - it pretends to be a riddle and ends up being silly; i can't understand your reasoning on this and you didn't explain it (no surprises there, your post is full of holes).

When you tell someone a joke, you are entering into a contract by which both people know that word play or trickery is going to be involved. By taking part in the joke, you are voluntarily allowing yourself to be misled so that a juxtaposition of ideas in your head makes you laugh. You aren't laughing at the expense of yourself. In the same way as reading a book or watching a film - you are not being lied to, you are not being tricked, you are a willing participant. When a magician performs a trick for you, you are suspending your disbelief and participating in a flight of fancy for entertainment purposes. Magic isn't shadenfreude either - no one suffers expense, they both enjoy and know that skilful subterfuge has taken place - though i'm sure you'll argue the contrary before you admit you've over committed to your point.

If a clown puts on an act for you and you laugh when his trousers fall down, you aren't laughing at the expense of the clown because he did it intentionally to make you laugh, he did not suffer expense. You are not laughing at the expense of yourself because you know that what he is doing is an act, you did not suffer expense (except for the ticket price, badum tish - there's another 'joke' at the expense of nothing/no one).

What you've tried to do is supply the definition of "joke" or "humour" such that the definition involves the word "trick" in a negative context and thus lead to shadenfreude. Not everyone thinks the same way as you do, which is what i tried to explain to you earlier; if you want to say "to me, everything is shadenfreude - i laugh only ever at the expense of something/someone" then i say fair enough, but that is not what you initially said.

So if/when you first heard the stick joke, you laughed AT the stick? The ET joke, you laughed AT ET? You laughed AT the mathemetician? I don't believe you, but regardless that isn't the point you made; many if not most other people are not laughing at ET or the stick, they are laughing at the juxtaposition of ideas. And therefore comedy/humour (not your very specific definition of it, which is irrelevant to our debate) is not ALWAYS at the expense of others, even if i accept that something that doesn't exist/is inanimate can suffer an emotional expense.

And finally, i don't understand the metaphorical suggestion that i shunned your need for air, when actually i spent a good 20 minutes providing you with air only to have you turn round and say "that's not air, it's nitrogen and oxygen with trace amounts of other gases!" and pull a trollface before passing out. Don't worry though, i'll drag you back to shore and make sure you're ok (this post).

I'll explain who's expense they each are at....
1. the stick's expense edit: and the reader's
2. ET's expense edit: and the reader's
3. mathematician's expense
4.your and/or the DR's expense
5.zebra's expense (edit: but riddles aren't really jokes, even though you may find humor in the consternation of others due to your trickery)
6. penguin's expense

I never said they were all offensive, horrible, or nasty, only that there is always a target for/of the joke/misunderstanding.
I suppose puns may be an exception, if you call that a joke, but they are still at the listener's expense to a degree (as they are intentionally misled and made to look the fool).
7. at Bob's(and the reader's) expense
8. fish's expense
9. bad magic trick at the magician's expense
10. bad piano at the player's expense
11. fictional character's expense
12. Lebowski's expense
13. fish's expense
14. your expense
15. doug's expense
16. listener's expense
17. skeleton's expense
No one said they would be offensive, only at someone's or something's expense. Play's on words hardly count as "jokes" but they are still at something's expense, even if it's only the listener who was tricked by the teller.
I could go on and on, but I'm not being paid for this either. I hope I opened your eyes to the idea that all humor IS at someone/thing's expense.
Now dread away. I'm not embarrassed that you didn't read my post/comment closely.

EDIT: ...and when I was begging for air, I was under water...and you just laughed and said "I see air".

I'm all in favor of Walmart paying their employees more than they are, which is horsecrap...

BUT...

This video is a crap argument.

The statistics are riddled with problems.

Just off the top of my head the problems with it...

*They picked Ohio, which isn't indicative of what a living wage would be across the US. It's 16th in cost of living by state rank. That's a crap state to select.

*They picked a 68 cent box of macaroni to show the increase in prices. I completely agree the amount they determined by percentage isn't much, but still, pick a reasonable item to show. Better yet, just say if your average grocery bill is $100, it'll go up X amount.

*As many as 15% of Ohio Walmart employees isn't 15%. Just because you make something that would qualify for food stamps doesn't mean YOU qualify for food stamps. If you're a dependent on someone else is makes a lot of money, you don't qualify as an example. Get the actual amount of people who do if you're going to project numbers about how much food stamps go to Walmart employees.

*I completely am in favor of everyone who works a full work week should get a living wage. 30 hours isn't a full work week! 40 is. Yes, EVERY Walmart employee who works 40 hours a week should earn a living wage. I saw that and wanted to throw things because it completely undermines a good policy idea with crap like that. Nobody considers 30 hours a full work week.

With all that said, bobknight33's argument is horsecrap. Food stamp measures in this case come into play as a reaction to underpay by the employer. Walmart is not paying its employees $8 because they know their employees can get food stamps to make up the difference. They pay their employees $8/hr because they don't have to pay more than that either because of market forces or because gov't regulations don't force them to pay more. If they could, they'd pay $4/hr, food stamps or not.

To argue it's because of any other reason is an exercise of complete naiveté towards the benevolent job creators who are only trying to do good by society.

And to think workers would just not work for such a low wage would only occur if they had other opportunities that paid better. They already don't have those options as is. This would magically change because you took away food stamps?!

Without food stamps to make an unlivable wage a living wage, here's what would happen - Walmart employees would have to work other jobs in addition to their Walmart job with similar low skill requirements. This would increase the labor pool (same number of workers who work more hours = higher supply of workers), and that would drive the cost of labor down, so Walmart and other low skill employers could pay EVEN LESS!

bobknight33... what a brilliant solution for low wages for jobs! You just exacerbated the problem.

GOTCHA=Comment Capture(this vermin has a habit of erasing its filth filled tracks.

Riddle: In what kind of trap does one employ jailbait?

Really though, comment to be forthcoming...too busy to be bothered now.

"The other day I saw a film called The Edge, which I regarded as the best thing to come out of Hollywood since The Silence of the Lambs. Perhaps not coincidentally, this flick also starred Anthony Hopkins. In one scene, Hopkins and his co-star, Alec Baldwin, seem in an absolutely hopeless situation, lost in the Arctic, stalked by a hungry bear, without weapons, seemingly doomed. Baldwin collapses, and Hopkins has a magnificent monologue, talking Baldwin out of his despair. The speech runs, roughly, like this: "Did you know you can make fire out of ice? You can, you know. Fire out of ice. Think about it. Fire out of ice. Think. Think."

This riddle has both a pragmatic and symbolic (alchemical) answer. The pragmatic answer you can find in the film, explicitly; and it might prove useful if you ever get lost in the north woods; and the alchemical, or Zen Buddhist, answer is also in the film, implicitly, and only perceptible to those who understand the dense character Hopkins plays in the story. It might prove useful whenever despair seems to overwhelm you. So, to those who at the end of this book still can't understand or sympathize with my Nietzschean yea-saying, I quote again: "Fire out of ice. Think. Think."

Who was that Prometheus guy and why did he give us fire in the first place?"

~Robert Anton Wilson

My friends,

Surely this will be the last opportunity for me to address you. The Air Force has bombed the towers of Radio Portales and Radio Corporación.

My words do not have bitterness but disappointment. May they be a moral punishment for those who have betrayed their oath: soldiers of Chile, titular commanders in chief, Admiral Merino, who has designated himself Commander of the Navy, and Mr. Mendoza, the despicable general who only yesterday pledged his fidelity and loyalty to the Government, and who also has appointed himself Chief of the Carabineros [national police].

Given these facts, the only thing left for me is to say to workers: I am not going to resign!

Placed in a historic transition, I will pay for loyalty to the people with my life. And I say to them that I am certain that the seed which we have planted in the good conscience of thousands and thousands of Chileans will not be shriveled forever.

They have strength and will be able to dominate us, but social processes can be arrested neither by crime nor force. History is ours, and people make history.

Workers of my country: I want to thank you for the loyalty that you always had, the confidence that you deposited in a man who was only an interpreter of great yearnings for justice, who gave his word that he would respect the Constitution and the law and did just that. At this definitive moment, the last moment when I can address you, I wish you to take advantage of the lesson: foreign capital, imperialism, together with the reaction, created the climate in which the Armed Forces broke their tradition, the tradition taught by General Schneider and reaffirmed by Commander Araya, victims of the same social sector which will today be in their homes hoping, with foreign assistance, to retake power to continue defending their profits and their privileges.

I address, above all, the modest woman of our land, the campesina who believed in us, the worker who labored more, the mother who knew our concern for children. I address professionals of Chile, patriotic professionals, those who days ago continued working against the sedition sponsored by professional associations, class-based associations that also defended the advantages which a capitalist society grants to a few.

I address the youth, those who sang and gave us their joy and their spirit of struggle. I address the man of Chile, the worker, the farmer, the intellectual, those who will be persecuted, because in our country fascism has been already present for many hours -- in terrorist attacks, blowing up the bridges, cutting the railroad tracks, destroying the oil and gas pipelines, in the face of the silence of those who had the obligation to protect them. They were committed. History will judge them.

Surely Radio Magallanes will be silenced, and the calm metal instrument of my voice will no longer reach you. It does not matter. You will continue hearing it. I will always be next to you. At least my memory will be that of a man of dignity who was loyal to [inaudible] the workers.

The people must defend themselves, but they must not sacrifice themselves. The people must not let themselves be destroyed or riddled with bullets, but they cannot be humiliated either.

Workers of my country, I have faith in Chile and its destiny. Other men will overcome this dark and bitter moment when treason seeks to prevail. Go forward knowing that, sooner rather than later, the great avenues will open again where free men will walk to build a better society.

Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers!

These are my last words, and I am certain that my sacrifice will not be in vain, I am certain that, at the very least, it will be a moral lesson that will punish felony, cowardice, and treason.

Just pointing out that I think it's dishonest to be a statist and deride others for being statists, statist.

Thanks for telling me that you fill out a W9, live in LA, and that you're an author; and letting me know that that information is none of my business. How contradictory of you. Statist liberloon.

Although it's fun pointing out you calling the kettle black, it's not necessarily personal grudge. I believe that libertarianism and white-washing of regulations is a bad thing. Look at Pakistan. It's no Somalia in terms of a libertarian paradise, but it's not far off:
http://tribune.com.pk/story/538217/poor-regulation/

^Pakistan is a country riddled with a lack of regulation, yet the poor keep getting poorer there, and the rich keep getting richer.

People who are destitute enough, do have alternatives that are not afforded to them here in the States though, they can sell their organs:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/10/pakistan.declanwalsh

OH TO BE FREE! to sell your organs...

If you do end up getting sick, you can always turn to the largely unregulated drug industry: http://www.aljazeera.com/video/asia/2012/01/201212775512528261.html

FREEDOM! to produce dangerous drugs on a mass scale... Hey! That's kindof like those kids who died from the polio vaccination that was privately funded and not regulated: http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/When-polio-vaccine-backfired-Tainted-batches-2677525.php

It's kind of like...ohhh I wasn't gonna post this again, but what the heck:

Racism is a riddle only the Batman could figure out.

Way to blame the victim. Regardless of how snarky she was, no matter how counter productive she became, dragging her off is what you should have focused on. Instead you end up looking like you're rushing to the defense of thin-skinned guilt-riddled Texas GOP legislators.

Do people realize the whole "if a good guy owns a gun" goes both ways? I love this argument because it's so one sided and utterly blind. I'd like to call it the "dumbass argument".

Let's think for a moment: kids looking for friend suddenly have a man open fire on them, so they all pull out their firearms to protect themselves from the raving lunatic old man who opened fire on them first. Old man is dead, riddled with dozens of bullets. Good guys win. Oh . . . wait. That's not what happened. The good guys didn't have a gun. Or was the old man a good guy? I'm confused now. Who's the good guy?

We had something similar here in Florida where a man was going door to door to sell lobster. Homeowner shot him in the head as he walked away, kept shooting him, and went to reload while an officer was trying to arrest him.

The real issue is the fact this man, and the man in my example, simply thought owning a gun meant they could shoot and kill someone for almost a pathetic reason. Both were "defending my home" against the evils of lobsters and ice skating. I believe this is the movie line of "shoot first, ask questions later." This is what is referring to as the "gun culture."

Yeah, guns (unless it's a colt) don't kill people, people with guns kill people. But there's an old mentality (that's pretty much dead now) that using a gun was cheating. That using a gun wasn't personal, so they resorted to swords and fists. Now, it's so easy to kill a person that it's almost impersonal just to shoot at some brown kid who's "invading" your home by showing up in a car, knocking on the door politely, and asking "Dónde está Paul?"

So anyway, now that we're arguing on the internet . . . .

@RedSky

I didn't say the US is more violent by nature, and I don't think it is (the US has lower violence than the UK and Australia which have essentially banned gun ownership). With 70 million people in this country owning guns (NRA 2010) and 45% of households having a gun in them (Gallup 2011), if we were so violent, you'd hear about neighbors shooting it out all the time over trivial shit.

I read an article the other day, which I can't find right now, that showed the difference between gun ownership in large cities and urban areas vs. rural areas and small towns. The rate of gun ownership in rural areas and small towns was over 2x as in cities, but violence and murders are higher in larger cities. Does this mean more guns equals less violence? Whether it does or doesn't, I think it shows that more people crammed into a smaller space equals more violence.

Why should we punish millions of responsible gun owners because of the actions of a few (and some who weren't legally able to own guns). Around 35,000 people are killed in car accidents every year. Most car owners and drivers are responsible and safe, but there isn't a public outcry to impose crazy restrictions on them (although we could reduce the number of deaths caused by cars if we did). The reason is because a lot of people have an irrational fear of guns even though you're more likely to be killed or injured by a car than guns.

I blame a this on the media. Some people are also irrationally afraid of flying, even though it's one of the safest ways to travel. If on the same day for some freaky reason 500 people died in unrelated, isolated car accidents across the country and a plane carrying 200 passengers crashes killing everyone on board, which do you think will get the most news coverage?

I just read an article by Sam Harris last night titled FAQ on Violence, which is a followup answering some questions and criticism of a previous article titled The Riddle of the Gun. Just go read the article. He answers a lot of questions about violence, gun violence, using guns for self defense, etc. I don't agree with some of what he says, but it does echo some of what I've been saying in discussions on this subject.

Sam Harris has some interesting thoughts in this blog post: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

"We could do many things to ensure that only fully vetted people could get a licensed firearm. The fact that 40 percent of all guns in the U.S. are legally purchased from private sellers without background checks on the buyers (the so-called “gun show loophole”) is terrifying. Getting a gun license could be made as difficult as getting a license to fly an airplane, requiring dozens of hours of training. I would certainly be happy to see policy changes like this. In that respect, I support much stricter gun laws. But I am under no illusions that such restrictions would make it difficult for bad people to acquire guns illegally. Given the level of violence in our society, the ubiquity of guns, and the fact that our penitentiaries function like graduate schools for violent criminals, I think sane, law-abiding people should have access to guns. In that respect, I support the rights of gun owners."