and what angle would that be?
YOU said mike ward was "rightly sued" for basically calling a kid ugly,and i asked for you to explain how this is a legal matter.

or is it your contention that because mike ward "punched down" instead of "punching up" IS the legal precedent?

what if he spoke on how ugly patton oswald is?
or ridiculed michael j fox's parkinsons?

would THAT be acceptable?
or would that be acceptable,but just in poor taste?

and you still haven't addressed how this young boys reputation has been ruined.from what i have been reading it was not his reputation,but how mike wards joke had become semi-popular and the kids in his school started busting this young boys balls to a degree where school was becoming an anxiety riddled event for the young man.

why aren't his school mates also being fined?
i mean,if we are going to bring in the state to handle every and all social issues..let us at least be fair.

and what about the people in the audiences that found the joke funny?
aren't they contributing to the continuation of this young mans suffering in school?

see,i think you are viewing this as a bullying situation (my assumption),and you are viewing this young man as a victim.a victim to bad jokes done in poor taste,and maybe you are correct,but jokes are subjective..NOT objective..and there is no tangible evidence that this young mans reputation has been affected.

it is the INTENT of the joke that should be scrutinized,and that is something that is also subjective and an issue we all deal with on an individual basis.the legal system should NEVER be used to decide such arbitrary and subjective material,because now you setting precedent and punishment based on "feelings",and this tactic can be easily abused.

so you may "feel" mike wards jokes are offensive and damaging,and that in your country mike ward should be executed for his crimes (fascist much?).

but remember...that pandoras box door swings BOTH ways,and the abuse can come from a direction that you,and i for that matter,would be appalled in its application.

and to even suggest that this is not a free speech issue is incredibly naive'.
if you think being charged in a civil case,and having to show in court multiple times to defend "joke" with the possibility of even MORE financial hardship,will not affect how a comedian approaches his routine and the jokes he writes,you are simply NOT thinking this whole situation through and the unintended consequences of situations such as these.

this is most certainly a free speech issue.

let me give you a hypothetical,but using the same parameters.

the wesboro baptist church goes to protest an abortion clinic,and are met with counter protesters.

the counter protesters begin to chastise and berate the westboro people.ridicule their stance on abortion and their religion.so much so that one of the younger westboro children becomes distraught,and anxious and begins to cry.someone films the exchange and posts to youtube,and it goes viral.

now the young westboro kid is being harassed in school,being picked on and being called names.the young kid is so vexed and humiliated that he avoids school at every step and is having self esteem issues.

so much so that the westboro church decides to sue the counter protesters in court.

what do you think the outcome should be?
should they even be allowed to sue?
and if so,should the young westboro kid receive damages?
or should those counter protesters receive the death penalty in your country?

do you see what i am saying?
you getting what i am laying down?

because free speech means that you are free to express yourself,but you are NOT free from offense,and offense is subjective.what offends YOU might not offend ME,and vice versa.

free speech means you are free to express every little thought that pops into your pretty little head and share with the world,and i am free to ridicule you relentlessly if i so choose.

and i will.
with gusto.

Hang on. If she's going to be pedantic, so can I.

In the system she describes, everyone knows they can't be getting a present from the person they're giving to.

This means for her three-person system, everyone knows exactly who got them the bloody scented candle (or whatever), just like with the original flawed version. For more people you can guess with 1/n-2 accuracy which in my office is good enough given the number of people who gossip about what they bought and who they saw with what.

I say stick with the original, but you're allowed to draw yourself. If you do, feel free to express yourself by getting a PS4, a sock, a positive pregnancy test, or whatever you think would get the best reaction.

Your video, Fozzie And Kermit Sing N.W.A.'s-Express Yourself, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If you are talking about the comment downvote, I'll let you know because I just feel you should know. I am completely tired of reading your banal bullshit addict riddled sounding tripe on the topic of DMT. You're like a broken freaking record. But as is my right to downvote that, so is your's to express yourself.

thank you so much for the quality my friend.
i wish i had your agile and quick mind.
i have such an admiration for how you think and express yourself.
i tend to get caught up in my own ramblomatic rants,where almost always my point gets lost in my own facile excretions.

Y'know, with the US now ranking 43rd, one notch above Haiti and one below New Guinea, or something like that, in freedom of the press, I'm not sure how much your freedom to express yourself without legal interference is the result of "imperfect men."

But that's just me.

Good luck.

Yup, from their FAQ area...

Not a subscription but not free-to-play; rather a hybrid of these two business models. Much like ArenaNet's Guild Wars 2, you will purchase the PC game and pay no recurring subscription charges. Your purchase of the game will allow you to play in the universe for free, forever! The game will offer a variety of virtual items for purchase with in-game credits allowing you to spend money on items that offer more ways to express yourself, provide convenience, and customize your experience. But the cardinal rule regarding "in-game purchases" is: Players who spend money purchasing in-game credits will have no advantage over players who spend time!

What you said is not true. The officer indeed handcuffs the offender after delivering pain compliance (force used to gain control of non-compliant suspects).

It's petty to downvote comments that come from a different perspective from your own.

Also, if you can't express yourself without swearing, this is probably an emotional rather than intellectual discussion.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I'm sorry, but I don't give a fuck what he's wanted for. If you think he's dangerous, bring fucking backup.
Also, that wasn't a distracting blow. It could have been called that, had the officer actually attempted to handcuff the man, instead of smiling at the fucking camera.
>> ^Velocity5:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
Appartently he was wanted for several (weak) charges, excluding threat of violence, of course. http://www.startribune.com/local/167902675.html?refer=y>> ^Velocity5:
Didn't they hear him say he didn't do anything? I don't understand the case file they were working from that made them arrest him.


The article says he was wanted for felony charges, so it can't be too weak. It's probably best to avoid the various conditions that led to those felony charges, and it's bad form and illegal to threaten a romantic partner with injury or murder.
The "distracting blow" (the kick) used by the officer to enforce compliance with his order that the suspect place his hands behind his back seems possibly unnecessary. But the suspect was known to have resisted arrest a few months ago, so officers are probably more wary in such cases.
Distracting blows are standard procedure, so the best advice for peacefully managing an encounter with law enforcement continues to be: comply with orders and take up complaints after the fact. Choose as you will.

>> ^Velocity5:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
Appartently he was wanted for several (weak) charges, excluding threat of violence, of course. http://www.startribune.com/local/167902675.html?refer=y>> ^Velocity5:
Didn't they hear him say he didn't do anything? I don't understand the case file they were working from that made them arrest him.


The article says he was wanted for felony charges, so it can't be too weak. It's probably best to avoid the various conditions that led to those felony charges, and it's bad form and illegal to threaten a romantic partner with injury or murder.
The "distracting blow" (the kick) used by the officer to enforce compliance with his order that the suspect place his hands behind his back seems possibly unnecessary. But the suspect was known to have resisted arrest a few months ago, so officers are probably more wary in such cases.
Distracting blows are standard procedure, so the best advice for peacefully managing an encounter with law enforcement continues to be: comply with orders and take up complaints after the fact. Choose as you will.

If it's not personal then why not downvote and move on? It's silly, some people don't like it and some people do. Just hang it up man.>> ^BoneRemake:

At least you people make me laugh.
Stop flattering yourself with the thought of it being personal @UsesProzac, I think the video has no point and is no better than a cat licking itself and sifting. Fletch should be tared and feathered for posting shit. When I do I am.

You chase that dream and express yourself on the yout00bs.

Ah, I understand now. You like to condescend to me to feel better about yourself.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^UsesProzac:
>> ^BoneRemake:
At least you people make me laugh.
Stop flattering yourself with the thought of it being personal @UsesProzac, I think the video has no point and is no better than a cat licking itself and sifting. Fletch should be tared and feathered for posting shit. When I do I am.

You chase that dream and express yourself on the yout00bs.

You make me despair for the human race. On a general, wholly unpersonal level.

You just in general make me happy because I know there is someone else more fucked up than I am.

>> ^UsesProzac:

>> ^BoneRemake:
At least you people make me laugh.
Stop flattering yourself with the thought of it being personal @UsesProzac, I think the video has no point and is no better than a cat licking itself and sifting. Fletch should be tared and feathered for posting shit. When I do I am.

You chase that dream and express yourself on the yout00bs.

You make me despair for the human race. On a general, wholly unpersonal level.


You just in general make me happy because I know there is someone else more fucked up than I am.

At least you people make me laugh.

Stop flattering yourself with the thought of it being personal @UsesProzac, I think the video has no point and is no better than a cat licking itself and sifting. Fletch should be tared and feathered for posting shit. When I do I am.


You chase that dream and express yourself on the yout00bs.

You're welcome, but I think you took a wrong turn somewhere when you followed that link, because Hitchens lost that debate pretty badly. Don't get me wrong, because I think Hitchens did win most of his debates, if only on his rhetorical abilities, but on that one he floundered..which is particularly clear when watching from 1:19:00 or so when he was subject to direct questioning by Craig.

In any case, the fallacious claims are all on your side, considering the rest of your post is nothing but a strawman argument. Congratulations, you defeated me in your imagination..did you get a boost of self-esteem? I also wonder how a self-described militant antitheist could escape the label of zealotry?

Let's say that I told you that I buried one million dollars somewhere in your neighborhood, and I gave you the GPS coordinates for its location. I also told you that if you didn't dig up the money within 48 hours, it would go back into my bank account. The GPS coordinates are very convenient to your location and are on public property. All you would have to do is go and check it out for yourself.

But, instead of going over to the location to dig, you start doing some research. You interview a lot of people in the neighborhood and you find out that no one actually saw me bury the money. You also find out that many other people have claimed to have buried treasure in the past, and many of those claims have turned out to be false. Further, on the basis of speculation as to what I was doing that day, you dig around many other locations where I was said to have been. After this, you finally come to the GPS location and look for forensic evidence, such as foot prints, that I was there. You test the malleability of the dirt at the location to see if it feels like it had been dug in recently. In that 48 hour time period, you do absolutely everything except putting your shovel into the ground and directly investigating the claim. At the end of the time period, you tell me that on the basis of your investigation, you have rejected my claim as false. I take you over to the location, dig up a suitcase and show you the money. It would have been yours if you had just taken a leap of faith and spent 5 minutes of your time investigating it.

Do you think the way you investigated this made any sense? If not, then why you do you think that the way you investigate the question of Jesus Christ makes any sense? You want to investigate it on your own terms, in your own way, stubbornly refusing to even consider the only actual way you would find evidence for the claim; the way that He told us to find Him. In all the time you have ever invested in this, you have refused to do the one thing that could yield up the truth. Does that make sense?

Jesus specifically said you wouldn't find any evidence for God any other way. He said He is the only way, and if you want to know God, you have to go through Him. Why are you so against actually testing His claim to see if it is true? Do you think the Lord of all Creation is incapable of proving His existence to you? Is it because you would feel silly? Isn't it worth feeling silly for a few minutes to potentially gain an eternal reward? Isn't it worth stepping outside your comfort zone for a few minutes to potentially avoid an eternal consequence? The only thing which is stopping you is pride.

I wasn't spoon fed anything; I was agnostic for most of my life. I had no predisposition towards Christianity, and actually many against it. I was opposed to religion in general, and the claims of Christianity in particular. I did just what you're doing; I dismissed it, thinking I knew enough about it to rule it out, when it was all just based on my superficial understanding. My proof constituted a few verses taken out of context, my rejection of any judgment for my sins, and the hypocripsy I had seen in Christians in general. Yet, it wasn't evidence at all, it was simply what I preferred to be true.

Yet, God was merciful to me. He drew me near to His Son, and when I finally gave my life to Him, Jesus revealed Himself to me. He will do the same for you, if you came to Him in humility and asked Him into your life. If you just asked Him what the real truth is, instead of arrogantly believing that you have it all figured out, He would show it to you. He makes it plain to everyone that He exists, it's just that people write these things off or deny them to themselves because they don't want to submit to God. They don't want to believe it is true.

Only God can reveal Himself to someone; I can only point to Him. No amount of argument is going to give you faith. You have to choose to want to know Him, to want to know what the actual truth is. It's something that happens in your heart, when you desire to know the love of God, and you simply do not have any idea how much He loves you. It is what you are here on Earth for, to know that love of His; to be in relationship with your Creator.

I pray that you learn that and understand that. You have to realize that you don't actually know either way. Step outside your comfort zone and listen to your conscience, because it witnesses against you that you have sinned against a holy God. There is forgiveness for you, but it is your choice to receive it or not.

>> ^SpaceGirlSpiff:
I honestly don't know why I bother... oh well, here goes.
First off, thank you for the Hitchens video, I don't think I had see that one yet. Now I've seen it though, I see that Hitchens once again quite successfully defends against the vapid, circle jerk arguments which assert proof without evidence. In fact a Hitchensism comes to mind that I quite enjoy, which states that, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Good stuff. Simple. Easy to put to use.
Take for example Shiny's ridiculous assertion about Hitchens being in his make-believe after life.
Shiny: Oh no, the after life is real and you're going to burn in hell fire. I know it's real because the bible says it's so and the bible is the truth.
Inquiry: How do you know it's the truth?
Shiny: Because the bible says it's the truth.
Inquiry: What evidence do you have that it's the truth?
Shiny: The bible says it's the truth.
No evidence. Fallacious claim dismissed.
You may choose different words to express yourself, but this is the very essence of your circle jerk argument and like all other apologists and zealots, it proves nothing except your willingness to accept something without evidence.
You contribute nothing.
You advance nothing.
Your words are empty.
You merely wretch up that which was fed to you...
...and I have no appetite for your absurdly limited menu.

I honestly don't know why I bother... oh well, here goes.

First off, thank you for the Hitchens video, I don't think I had see that one yet. Now I've seen it though, I see that Hitchens once again quite successfully defends against the vapid, circle jerk arguments which assert proof without evidence. In fact a Hitchensism comes to mind that I quite enjoy, which states that, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Good stuff. Simple. Easy to put to use.

Take for example Shiny's ridiculous assertion about Hitchens being in his make-believe after life.

Shiny: Oh no, the after life is real and you're going to burn in hell fire. I know it's real because the bible says it's so and the bible is the truth.
Inquiry: How do you know it's the truth?
Shiny: Because the bible says it's the truth.
Inquiry: What evidence do you have that it's the truth?
Shiny: The bible says it's the truth.

No evidence. Fallacious claim dismissed.

You may choose different words to express yourself, but this is the very essence of your circle jerk argument and like all other apologists and zealots, it proves nothing except your willingness to accept something without evidence.

You contribute nothing.
You advance nothing.
Your words are empty.
You merely wretch up that which was fed to you...

...and I have no appetite for your absurdly limited menu.