>> ^SDGundamX:

For the most part, I thought this was excellent.
I did wince a bit when he claimed if we break the population of the U.S. down by sects that atheists would be the biggest group. That's just declaring open season for people like Shiny to claim that atheism is a belief system. What would have been truer would be to say that people who declare no affiliation with any sect of an organized religion would be the largest group... and that group would be an incredibly diverse group of people that included anti-theists, agnostics, Wiccans, Christians who have left the church behind but still pray every day, etc.
About the "magic undergarments" bit, that's a little overplayed and kind of a cheap shot. Mormons that I've talked to treat the garments as purely symbolic (a symbol of their covenant with God) and a survey done a while back showed that most thought of it as simply "spiritual protection" (from temptation to sin).
More on the undergarments here: http://www.mormonstudies.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8:what-are-mormon-underwear-or-garments&catid=1:faq&
Itemid=2


I agree with you on every point.

For the most part, I thought this was excellent.

I did wince a bit when he claimed if we break the population of the U.S. down by sects that atheists would be the biggest group. That's just declaring open season for people like Shiny to claim that atheism is a belief system. What would have been truer would be to say that people who declare no affiliation with any sect of an organized religion would be the largest group... and that group would be an incredibly diverse group of people that included anti-theists, agnostics, Wiccans, Christians who have left the church behind but still pray every day, etc.

About the "magic undergarments" bit, that's a little overplayed and kind of a cheap shot. Mormons that I've talked to treat the garments as purely symbolic (a symbol of their covenant with God) and a survey done a while back showed that most thought of it as simply "spiritual protection" (from temptation to sin).

More on the undergarments here: http://www.mormonstudies.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8:what-are-mormon-underwear-or-garments&catid=1:faq&Itemid=2

Two things about his video make me happy.

None of the people on the train smack her (must have been a huge temptation).
And, the posting of this video on the internet means she will forever be the poster child for ignorant racism in England.

See that camera on you?--Yes, please continue spewing your hatred.

Totally. It's easy to assume he's nervous, or maybe he was put on the spot. But then you find out he's the one that posted the video, willingly. So you get the impression that he was fine by that pitiful display of knowledge.>> ^jmzero:

I can understand knowing nothing about science. I can understand making the leap from "I don't understand anything" to "nobody understands anything". Fish are smart, electrons are molecules, wind is a mystery. Whatever. There's lots of stuff I don't know, and I might one day decide to make a video. Sure, cool. Free country. Have fun.
What I can't understand is how you make this video and think, "OK, time to post this". Like, surely as he was recording this he couldn't have been thinking "man, this is going really well". He gets completely lost multiple times.. did he feel no temptation to start again? I assume nobody forces him to post these unedited from the first take - why not just think about what you want to say for a few seconds and try again?

I can understand knowing nothing about science. I can understand making the leap from "I don't understand anything" to "nobody understands anything". Fish are smart, electrons are molecules, wind is a mystery. Whatever. There's lots of stuff I don't know, and I might one day decide to make a video. Sure, cool. Free country. Have fun.

What I can't understand is how you make this video and think, "OK, time to post this". Like, surely as he was recording this he couldn't have been thinking "man, this is going really well". He gets completely lost multiple times.. did he feel no temptation to start again? I assume nobody forces him to post these unedited from the first take - why not just think about what you want to say for a few seconds and try again?

>> ^Crosswords:

Lobbyists should only be able to make their case during official recorded meetings. None of those dinner, club or trips to a Scottish golf course meetings; including staff working for the politician. Plus former staff members should not be allowed to lobby, ever. Obviously way too much temptation for corruption.


Should the same be had of a citizen writing his congressman? What would the legal difference be between a lobby and a "normal" person. If you try and legislate this, it will only be a matter of time before normal people get caught in the cross-hairs. My solution would be to roll back the responsibility of the government to regulate those things we hold dear and do it ourselves. New technology and know how is making "outsourcing" of major responsibilities no longer necessary. All to often, government officials have no real expertise on the things we want them to look after anyway, how many 60 year old technology minded Senators exist currently or ever? Which understand the intricacies of the biological world of the cell? To great the cost for such ignorant people. Best in our hands, best by our means. The creative solutions of interesting people and communities would be fair more beneficial to all than one monolithic, solution managed by fools. This has problems of its own, but is a far cry from the corruption that an overly legal, federal understanding of life holds for us...ask Russia.

Lobbyists should only be able to make their case during official recorded meetings. None of those dinner, club or trips to a Scottish golf course meetings; including staff working for the politician. Plus former staff members should not be allowed to lobby, ever. Obviously way too much temptation for corruption.

As Chris Hitchens writes at Sl
ate:

"As we engage with the horrible idea that our government claims the right to add its own citizens to a death list that is compiled by methods and standards unknown, we must concede that no government on earth faces such a temptation to invoke what I suppose we could call a doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense. Those who share my alarm at the prospect of this, and of the ways in which it could be abused, are under a heavy obligation to say what they would do instead."

Here's my theory on why it so often turns out that homophobes are often themselves gay:

If you, as a man, desire other men to some degree, you might imagine that this is how every guy feels - that it's a "temptation common to man" to be resisted. You might see yourself slipping into more thoughts about men... or something.

For someone who's not gay (like me... I'm not bragging or something, I'm just, uh, not gay) the outlook is different: those gay guys like men, thus they are clearly different than me. I don't understand being attracted to a man. I can't imagine willing myself into liking men instead of women - so I would never think a gay guy could will himself into liking women instead of men. Could I imagine pretending to be gay, and living like that? Yes.. but it's really horrible: I'd be missing some of the great things in life (or, worse, having some really traumatic experiences) and lying to everyone all the time. How could I ask a gay guy to pretend to be straight?

To summarize, I think this natural empathy tempers homophobia in straight men. In closeted gays, the demand for empathy works the other way - like, "if I have to deny myself this, why can't you?" and thus you get a lot of vociferously anti-gay gays.

um.. that sounds incredibly boring.. how would anyone see the weird crap you're building?

perhaps a better solution would be play in password protected servers where you can trust people? but there's always temptation!

>> ^SeesThruYou:

I have a solution that works WAY better than this...
Ready?
Don't play Minecraft ONLINE! Duh.
Problem fucking solved.

Well, during the Rodney King riots in the U.S. it was basically the same situation as in London... people (including some of my friends, I'm ashamed to say) saw it as an opportunity. The police were overwhelmed and couldn't be everywhere at once, so throngs of (mostly young) people headed down to their local strip mall and grabbed anything they could carry. The justification my friends gave? Those places were being looted by other people anyway, so you might as well get something for yourself in the process. Plus some of them felt they were "sticking it to the man." They saw themselves as protesting the Rodney King verdict. If cops could get off for killing someone why shouldn't law abiding citizens get off for stealing a couple of items?

The rationalizations were, of course, ludicrous. But I think the whole rioting thing is a complex issue. My friends aren't thugs. Aside from the riots, the most trouble they've ever been in with the law since then are parking violations. Certainly there were genuine gang-bangers and other thugs out during the riots looking for trouble, but I think a lot of the rioters (both in London and Los Angeles) were just normal kids who succumbed to the excitement and temptation of mob mentality (see this article about the psychology of mobs).

Nothing better than a...NO.
Must resist temptation to descend to their level.
Must resist....

Other downsides: personal vendettas, poor training caused disasters, criminals with a badge, etc, etc.

I understand the sentiment behind the idea, but it's putting way too much trust in the masses.

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^hpqp:
@dgandhi and @GenjiKilpatrick
I don't know if it's because my faith in humanity is practically non-existent, but I have a hard time imagining a society which does not have some form of law enforcement, for when the preventive measures and education fail... The powerful (be that with brawn or dough) will always be tempted to prey on the weak, and some will heed that temptation. Then what?

I'm inclined to respond "Yes, obviously, look at how the police act.".
I'm not claiming that power vacuums will somehow remain vacant, I'm simply suggesting that there are probably better ways to fill them. I think that any number of radical departures could serve the need to reduce power abuse better than the current system.
My favorite option is going to lose me libertarian support, but I think conscription would work very well for law enforcement.
Lets say that everybody had to serve 21 days every 3 years, 7 weekends of training followed by 1 week of enforcement. We have some professional trainers, but the cops on the street are civilians for 99.3% of their lives. Since the number of officers would be very high in this case, most of them won't even have to take time off work, they just have a gun, badge and a radio with them at all times, and the closest officers are dispatched to do what is needed.
Down side: everybody has to do it.
Up side: more cops, nobody has to do it much, and nobody get in the habit of being above the law.

>> ^hpqp:

@dgandhi and @GenjiKilpatrick
I don't know if it's because my faith in humanity is practically non-existent, but I have a hard time imagining a society which does not have some form of law enforcement, for when the preventive measures and education fail... The powerful (be that with brawn or dough) will always be tempted to prey on the weak, and some will heed that temptation. Then what?


I'm inclined to respond "Yes, obviously, look at how the police act.".

I'm not claiming that power vacuums will somehow remain vacant, I'm simply suggesting that there are probably better ways to fill them. I think that any number of radical departures could serve the need to reduce power abuse better than the current system.

My favorite option is going to lose me libertarian support, but I think conscription would work very well for law enforcement.

Lets say that everybody had to serve 21 days every 3 years, 7 weekends of training followed by 1 week of enforcement. We have some professional trainers, but the cops on the street are civilians for 99.3% of their lives. Since the number of officers would be very high in this case, most of them won't even have to take time off work, they just have a gun, badge and a radio with them at all times, and the closest officers are dispatched to do what is needed.

Down side: everybody has to do it.
Up side: more cops, nobody has to do it much, and nobody get in the habit of being above the law.