>> ^ChaosEngine:
Let's be clear, this wasn't some legitimate, peaceful protest. There are any number of ways he could have done that.
Instead he runs out from the crowd and tries to grab the torch. How is that anything but assault? Also, I note that he didn't try this when there was a larger male athlete carrying it. He waited for a woman. He's a coward.
Forget the olympics. Forget the crowd. If I saw this happen on the street, I'd smack the shit outta that guy. The only thing that would have been better would have been if the woman had beaten his ass herself.


The ideal of peaceful protest is one of the great propaganda victories of repressive government.

'You can have your little protest as long as you don't actually try to accomplish anything. We can steal billions of public money to fund a PR stunt for our nationalist authority, effectively equivalent to several days of forced labour for everyone in the UK, but if you try to grab a torch we bought with your money then you're a violent criminal.'

>> ^hpqp:
Sometimes I wish ignorant cop-haters like you had to live in an actual fascist police state (NK for example) in order to learn the true meaning of the concepts you so blithely bandy about. Some people in the US abuse their positions of power, no doubt about that, and it's good to want to see that change. But to lump all law-enforcement (and government, for that matter) into a ball of "fascism" only shows how ignorant, hateful and/or paranoid-delusional you are.


This is a typical attitude of those who don't value freedom.

The United States is horrifyingly oppressive. Everything from the individual's movements to his communications down to his actual body chemistry is strictly controlled. Good people find that intolerable.

There's no excuse. Being slightly less repressive than North fucking Korea is not something to be proud of.

^ Oh yay, the good ol' "homosexuality is equivalent to zoophiliac gangbanging".

Notice how the homophobes and bigots are so obsessed about the sexual aspect of homosexuality? Repressive indoctrination and self-hate is probably not so good for having a healthy opinion about intimate relationships.

Everyone I've ever dated or married always looked at other girls and guys and commented on their fuckability in fact, lust-watch developed into a favored pastime in all of my relationships.
There are indicators available to humans of another human's libido still having legs under it and the impulse to keep humanity from further repression should be part of any healthy survivor's MO.

I watched this live on NBC. My wife looked at him and closed her mind. His story represents a repressed being who seemingly been rejected by society. In his solace he found inner peace through singing. Truly beautiful.

I'm not a GOTH fan by any means but this was truly uplifting. I wish him the very best in life.

was his last comment “by god i love you fellers”
maybe he was saying followers but he is probably sexually repressed

Awww man... Ya know, I had successfully repressed this whole incident in my memory for over three years. Now I gotta excise that ginger out of my mind all over again!

>> ^deathcow:

promote

>> ^gwiz665:

I find the hypocrisy of Christians acting non-christian hilarious. Atheists on average are just nicer people.

Idk about that. What bothers me is that he can make this little hate speech to an army of drones, all of them with the sincere belief that when they abuse and torment their children for the way they are because some divine being told them to. Poor Isaac.


Its like the scandal within the Catholic church. Clearly paedophiles exist outside of religion or this specific faith, what is particularly frightening is the degree to which the organisation covered it up and protected their own. Perhaps you could argue the priests were insane, sexually repressed, in need of help, but the organisation that protects them with no thought given to the victims? Thats the evil.

I had to create an account to comment on this. I'm so sorry you have to experience this kind of abuse. Your mother is displaying some very classic examples of repressed emotional turmoil. Anger, frustration I don't know the cause and she most likely doesn't either. Unfortunately she has made her family around her (in this situation you) her outlet.

This type of activity also displays a trend towards either a sociopath or psychopathic mindset. A lack of consideration for the emotional distress and damage a person can inflict on another person simply because they do not have enough insight (emotional development) into themselves to see their negative impact on those around them.

There is little hope she will change, however you can still embrace the lessons you learn from watching her and hopefully live a life more aware of the people around you and how you can affect them.

Try showing her this video and ask her how she thinks she makes you feel.

My guess is she is not going to watch it though she probably can't face herself.

Please don't carry her emotional abuse forward and poison any children you might have in the future in the same manner that she possibly is.

She is not mentally fit to be a mother. Yes that is professional prognosis.

That's not predicated by the polygamy. People make the same argument for gay marriage - all the horror and gay disease that follows with gay marriage.

I can agree that polygamy provides an excuse for crazy people to do crazy things, like Porn also does (if we remember that discussion). It attracts the wrong crowd. That said, principally there's nothing wrong with polygamy.

Muslims have a funny sense of honor..
>> ^therealblankman:

@gwiz665
Personally I don't give two shits about whatever consenting adults do- sexually, maritally, orally, anally or whateverly. The problem with polygamy isn't the multiple spouses per se, it's what accompanies it, such as child abuse, the severe repression of women, and domestic violence.
Polygamy is a sensitive subject here in Canada and especially in BC. A recent case involving a polygamous Muslim marriage in Ontario went a little sideways when a man and his second wife actually murdered the first wife and her 3 daughters in some sick nasty "honour" thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafia_family_murders
In BC there has been an ongoing case involving a small Mormon community called Bountiful. The Polygamous men there have been trafficking in young pre-pubescent girls, marrying them and consummating those "marriages". Pretty fucked up stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bountiful,_British_Columbia
It's pretty hard to support Polygamy when such consequences seem to follow naturally. The above examples are admittedly extreme, but hardly isolated or unprecedented.

@gwiz665

Personally I don't give two shits about whatever consenting adults do- sexually, maritally, orally, anally or whateverly. The problem with polygamy isn't the multiple spouses per se, it's what accompanies it, such as child abuse, the severe repression of women, and domestic violence.

Polygamy is a sensitive subject here in Canada and especially in BC. A recent case involving a polygamous Muslim marriage in Ontario went a little sideways when a man and his second wife actually murdered the first wife and her 3 daughters in some sick nasty "honour" thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafia_family_murders

In BC there has been an ongoing case involving a small Mormon community called Bountiful. The Polygamous men there have been trafficking in young pre-pubescent girls, marrying them and consummating those "marriages". Pretty fucked up stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bountiful,_British_Columbia

It's pretty hard to support Polygamy when such consequences seem to follow naturally. The above examples are admittedly extreme, but hardly isolated or unprecedented.

>> ^jonny:

1) Censorship is not, in and of itself, morally wrong. There are plenty of situations where it is not only acceptable but morally preferable.

Which situations? I can think of a few too, and as I said in earlier comments I think it's perfectly acceptable to have some narrow exceptions to the "free speech shall not be infringed" rule.

I'm just saying that we'd enumerate the exceptions in law, and if your speech doesn't clearly fall in one of those categories (like incitement to violence or hate speech), then private companies shouldn't be free to censor you.

The idea isn't to force Youtube to host hate speech, the idea is to give people a legal recourse if they're being censored for merely rendering an atheist critique of major religions.
>> ^jonny:
2) What makes censorship immoral is the nature and basis of the censorship and the means of its enforcement consequences for breaking it. 3) Google does not have the ability to effectively censor anything outside of its own domain, which means it doesn't have the ability to effectively censor anything, period.

We're back to my China example then. China doesn't have the ability to censor anything outside of its own domain either, which (according to you) means it doesn't have the ability to effectively censor anything, period.
>> ^jonny:
Every time I start to expand on these points, I keep coming back to that first word. 'Yes.' Before I go any further, I want to make sure I understand you clearly. Is it the case that you believe a policy of repressive government censorship which would provoke someone to renounce their citizenship is morally equivalent to Google's censorship which would provoke someone to change their video host?

I'm mostly just being flippant. China's form of censorship is clearly much worse than what Google did here. But there's usually a sliding scale with moral transgressions -- if a guy punches someone in the face over a misunderstanding, and then later apologizes, that's obviously less severe than a guy who unrepentantly commits genocide. But the underlying violation of moral principle is the same: violence against innocent people is wrong.

The larger point I'm trying to make is that China is only different in terms of how intensely they've violated the underlying moral principle. It's not a categorically different transgression.

And keep in mind, that in the hypothetical situation that Google stuck to their guns, and thunderf00t decided to keep breaking Google's policy to make a point, ultimately the U.S. government would be drawn into the fight, and would, if nobody backed down, arrest thunderf00t for trying to use Google's property in a way that they didn't consent to.

1) Censorship is not, in and of itself, morally wrong. There are plenty of situations where it is not only acceptable but morally preferable. 2) What makes censorship immoral is the nature and basis of the censorship and the means of its enforcement consequences for breaking it. 3) Google does not have the ability to effectively censor anything outside of its own domain, which means it doesn't have the ability to effectively censor anything, period.

Every time I start to expand on these points, I keep coming back to that first word. 'Yes.' Before I go any further, I want to make sure I understand you clearly. Is it the case that you believe a policy of repressive government censorship which would provoke someone to renounce their citizenship is morally equivalent to Google's censorship which would provoke someone to change their video host?

If you can sincerely answer yes to that question, there's probably not much point in continuing this conversation. I can't even conceive of, much less relate to, the kind of ideological absolutism that could produce that kind of conclusion. To be honest, that is the most generous characterization I could think of to describe what I understand your position to be. No offense.
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^jonny:
Seriously? You're equating where and the laws under which one lives to where and the restrictions under which one posts videos or blogs? You're equating Google's non-monopolistic business position with the government's monopoly on violence? You're equating renouncing one's citizenship to changing one's video host?!
Yes. If we agree that censorship is morally wrong, why does that suddenly become morally acceptable when the people doing the censoring only wield a lot of power, but not absolute power?

Every time Santorum talks about sex opens his mouth, I just think about how repressed his children must be. I am infinately curious as to what life is like in that family. TLC make it happen!

Two of the traits I consider sickest in a person are a negative attitude towards sex, or sexual repression, and a distrust of education.

Okay, it's not quite up there with "likes to rub his dick on stinging nettles", but we're operating in the same area. They're so destructive, and they indicate a very scared and underdeveloped human being.