There's a difference between "commandeering a place of business" and expecting a taxi driver to take you to the correct location. It's a pretty unique situation in that you are almost always in an unfamiliar place without transport. It's not the same as staying in a movie theatre.

If I was in a cab and they didn't drop me to where I had asked to go, I would probably get out and refuse to pay. But in an Uber, you've already paid, so staying in the cab is pretty much your only recourse, otherwise, you get dropped on the side of the road somewhere and you can, what... downvote them? Yeah, that's really helpful when you're stuck trying to get somewhere without transport.

That's as a general principle.

In this specific case, I already agreed that she was being an entitled arsehole. She was at the hospital, she should have just gotten out.

My issue isn't that he asked her to leave, my issue is the way he handled it.

You simply don't act like that. Period.

He was borderline violent. That fact that he DIDN'T resort to violence is the only thing keeping him from an assault charge. It's not something to be commended, it's basic civilised behaviour.

He's a taxi driver (Uber = taxi and @Drachen_Jager is right, they should be held to the same standards). His job is dealing with the public. If he can't deal with one annoying person without losing his shit, then maybe this job isn't for him.

We have the enormous misfortune in the UK to live in a democracy; how could it not? As more people from, effectively, the past enter the country the progress we've been making will be slowed or reversed.

Western, or probably more specifically north-western europe is that special region in the world where religion is actually dying off. More people in the UK are non-religious than religious. Christians in this country finally have the decency to be ashamed of their faith, and any extravagant public expression of belief is met with contempt from believers and non-believers alike - look at the minor scandal created when Tony Blair admitted to being a catholic, and engaging in such outlandish behaviours as prayer.

Orthodox christians from easten europe, and refugees from even less civilised areas, haven't had the opportunity to develop the same attitude. As they settle in their nasty little insular communities, the danger is that they're in a position to act as voting blocs that damage public policy.

Anyway, I'm sure it's heartening for eric to discover that basically none of us has any idea either.

It follows exactly. We are accountable for the things we do and for the things we would do if circumstance allowed.

Were I to tell you I was, say, pro-choice, you would be in a strong position to guess at my attitude toward a particular ethical question. If you then learned that I'd had no abortions personally, would you therefore label me a pro-lifer in spite of my stated position?

Well then, what if I tell you about an infamous tyrant of my acquaintance, a monster who committed every crime against humanity he had the means to commit, and whom I believe to be the very best person who ever lived. I tell you I intend to follow the shining example of this nightmare, shall we say religiously, for the rest of my life. Do you really presume to claim that no negative inference can be drawn about my character whatsoever? What guess would you make about my propensity for insane, vicious murder?

I have yet to have an abortion, it might be said largely in consequence of my lacking certain procedural necessities. Yet I remain pro-choice. The majority of muslims in civilised countries, the minority in muslim countries, have committed no great atrocities. Yet they remain muslim.

The Giant Cranes and Robots That Keep Civilisation Running has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg.

Reminds me of an older Tom Scott video where he talked about the history of the cargo container (didn't mention Malcom by name though). *related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Giant-Cranes-and-Robots-That-Keep-Civilisation-Running

Bob, you're off your rocker if you think that it's a good thing to make doctors give unsound and incorrect advice to patients. Just take a minute to consider what sort of crackpot dystopia you're promoting with that line of thinking. Government regulations that force a doctor to lie to patients is ok if you need to get your own way. Is it worth poisoning the water with that kind of Orwellian shit just because you can't win the debate about abortion? What comes after legally forcing doctors to lie to patients, if that becomes the norm?

What am i saying, apparently it IS the norm..!?

Civilisation is descending into madness right in front of our eyes, whilst teams of people work day and night on press releases to make it seem perfectly normal. Some of you god-botherers can be real dangerous lunatics when you want to be.

Queensland, I think, and there are certainly copper deposits at Mt. Isa. Unfortunately Mt. Isa is a long way from civilisation... but I'm sure there are other deposits around.

No.

There is an unofficial sequel written on the premise that Mordor was Middle-earth's first progressive, technological civilisation; which was thrown down by effectively a crusade of religious fanatics. I didn't get very far into it (because I was reading it as a pdf on a computer monitor), but Saruman's motivation at least makes substantially more sense in that interpretation.

This video gets somewhat hard to follow when half the time I can't tell if they're saying 'Soren' or mispronouncing 'Sauron'.

Thanks

Bandit is a steer, so screwing the cows isn't a concern, it's really all about the money. It takes about a hectare of grazing land per animal (see http://www.mla.com.au/Extension-and-training/Tools-and-calculators/Stocking-rate-calculator for the gory details) if you raise them outside, compared to a few square metres if you keep them chained up.

I'm a little surprised that this is allowed in a civilised country.

What the fuck is going on here? Is this real politics? This is an obviously stupid, ignorant man. It's as though he has verbal diarrhea - he just can't stop exaggerating and making things up as though he's a kid in a playground, with no thought for evidence or substance, i'm expecting any minute for him to say that his dad can lift a house, he's been to the moon three times and he's been made Earth President by the alien high council. How the hell can he make so much progress in his bid for the American PRESIDENCY?

"I don't know where i saw the video, but i know i saw it because i have the world's greatest memory"
Those words were spoken in absolute seriousness by a leading presidential candidate for the US in 2015 when justifying a racist comment about muslims. I write this for posterity so future historians are left in no doubt, when the video is long gone, when all we have are fossils of internet text, because our civilisation violently died when President Trump took the west to nuclear war because he thought his dad is better than Putin's dad.

You can trust my memory. Where did i see it? I don't remember.....

@bobknight33 - whereas those right wing comedians have been absolutely killing the ratings as of late. They don't exist because as Chris Rock said comedy should always be punching upwards - so where is the comparison to say whether or not a right wing comedy show would do so much better? Personally i very rarely find Colbert funny, but that's because i don't find him funny, not because i think he's left wing - hence i wouldn't watch his show regardless of politics. It's your burden to prove that his political leanings have anything to do with his ratings.

Not true, and that's why I posted the actual definition, rather than my personal feeling on what the word means. Then we can all start from the ACTUAL definition(s) rather than just making some up and arguing about it.

Your second paragraph/sentence makes no sense at all to me, and sounds like a disjointed red herring/straw man/bad attempt at creating a false argument you can shoot down....but it's so all over the place it's unfollowable.

You continue to confuse feminism with Feminism, and also continue to paint all Feminists in the worst possible light based on a few overboard examples rather than describing the normal, average Feminist.
For instance, many Feminists see pornography and prostitution as empowering and taking control of their own sexuality, and it was actually prudish anti-feminist men who tried to censor it in the courts.

In fact, there ARE many people in the civilized world who still think women don't deserve the same rights as men in many areas, and insist they are unable to perform tasks men can perform, must be coddled and subservient, and are lesser beings based purely on gender, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It's only because of this continuing misunderstanding on your part that you claim anyone said anything like "The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank... "...you are again confusing feminist with Feminist, and using the wrong one. We don't have Feminist advocacy to thank, we do however have feminist advocacy to thank for the advancements in women's rights...it's what the word means.


It doesn't sound at all like you 'appreciate the attempt at consensus building', or even understood my point, since you continue to conflate feminism with Feminism. I can't be certain, but it seems you are doing that intentionally in order to argue a moot point.



EDIT:sorry, I thought I quoted you @gorillaman, so I'll cut and paste....

gorillaman said:
Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

Interesting. I think a Civilisation type game would be more interesting as ants tend to live as a colony rather than individuals.
I wonder if he'll add any pheromone mechanics? Being a scout that creates safe trails to food sources would be an interesting game type.

Yeah, they do.

And funnily enough, no, I'm not tolerant of your homophobic, racist nonsense.

In case you missed it, the fucking Supreme Court told you to get over it. For fucks sake, Ireland (previous winner of the "most catholic place on the planet" 70 years running) legalised gay marriage.

So yeah, the game is over, your team lost (in fact, they got utterly spanked). You're just the spoilt kids throwing a temper tantrum on the field while the rest of the civilised world has gone to the bar.

Eventually, it'll start to rain, and (like you did with slavery and women's rights) you'll come to the bar and feel embarrassed that you made such a dick out of yourselves in the first place. Luckily for you, by that time, we'll be drunk and in a good mood, so we'll forgive you.

I'm going to skip all the "gay is a choice" bollocks (hint: it's not, and when did you decide to be straight?) and focus on this.

Simple answer: because you're allowed to stand against this anymore in a civilised society.

Aww, is your freedom to be a bigoted homophobe being taken away? Too fucking bad.

This is 2015. You don't get to stand against homosexuality anymore, just like you don't get to dispute women having the vote or black people being allowed to ride the bus.

It's over. You lost. Deal with it.