>> ^braindonut:

Your comment makes no sense to me whatsoever.
It's really quite simple: Schools should not show preference to any religion. Period. That's what this principal just did. Whether or not there's a majority of people wanting to pray has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I hope they get sued.
>> ^longde:
Bullies? I don't think so. What's the big deal either way? If the majority of the students want to take a minute out of their ceremony and pray, so what? Let those fools pray. Noone has to participate. How are they hurting anyone to say a few religious words aloud?
If anyone is a bully, it's the kid who filed a lawsuit to defy them the right to pray. Now that is troll behavior. I am glad they defied the injunction.



Preference? Nobody who was christian got a better grade...they got a minute to do a prayer. News flash people are different and they get treated differently.

Your comment makes no sense to me whatsoever.

It's really quite simple: Schools should not show preference to any religion. Period. That's what this principal just did. Whether or not there's a majority of people wanting to pray has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I hope they get sued.

>> ^longde:

Bullies? I don't think so. What's the big deal either way? If the majority of the students want to take a minute out of their ceremony and pray, so what? Let those fools pray. Noone has to participate. How are they hurting anyone to say a few religious words aloud?
If anyone is a bully, it's the kid who filed a lawsuit to defy them the right to pray. Now that is troll behavior. I am glad they defied the injunction.

This pissing contest is quite amusing, the very latest episode in particular: Dutch court orders formally Europe-wide preliminary injunction against Samsung Galaxy smartphones

Why don't they print out the patent law in question and shove it up their collective arses.

>> ^9547bis:

He's talking about the Mutazilah, a branch of Islam that rejected the Sunni beliefs.
I'll quote Wikipedia, 'cause I'm lazy:
They proceeded to posit that the injunctions of God are accessible to rational thought and inquiry: because knowledge is derived from reason, reason is the "final arbiter" in distinguishing right from wrong. It follows, in Mu'tazili reasoning, that "sacred precedent" is not an effective means of determining what is just, as what is obligatory in religion is only obligatory "by virtue of reason."
Basically, their credo was the antithesis of Sunni Islam, but it didn't stop them from becoming the major intellectual/religious force within the Muslim empire at that time.
Also, the guy presented as causing their downfall didn't just come up with "2+2=Satan" and call it a day: he was a fatalist (i.e. believed in Fate) who posited that reason leads nowhere, was persecuted for that, and his followers turned him into a martyr, making their cause more popular. Besides, the fact that the Middle East suffered through various invasions (culminating with Mr Khan & Sons a few decades later) probably did a lot to distance people from a rational/cerebral worldview toward a more emotional / "God Controls All" one.


Sounds a lot like gnosticism.

He's talking about the Mutazilah, a branch of Islam that rejected the Sunni beliefs.

I'll quote Wikipedia, 'cause I'm lazy:
They proceeded to posit that the injunctions of God are accessible to rational thought and inquiry: because knowledge is derived from reason, reason is the "final arbiter" in distinguishing right from wrong. It follows, in Mu'tazili reasoning, that "sacred precedent" is not an effective means of determining what is just, as what is obligatory in religion is only obligatory "by virtue of reason."

Basically, their credo was the antithesis of Sunni Islam, but it didn't stop them from becoming the major intellectual/religious force within the Muslim empire at that time.

Also, the guy presented as causing their downfall didn't just come up with "2+2=Satan" and call it a day: he was a fatalist (i.e. believed in Fate) who posited that reason leads nowhere, was persecuted for that, and his followers turned him into a martyr, making their cause more popular. Besides, the fact that the Middle East suffered through various invasions (culminating with Mr Khan & Sons a few decades later) probably did a lot to distance people from a rational/cerebral worldview toward a more emotional / "God Controls All" one.

Bullies? I don't think so. What's the big deal either way? If the majority of the students want to take a minute out of their ceremony and pray, so what? Let those fools pray. Noone has to participate. How are they hurting anyone to say a few religious words aloud?

If anyone is a bully, it's the kid who filed a lawsuit to defy them the right to pray. Now that is troll behavior. I am glad they defied the injunction.

>> ^blankfist
:

@NetRunner, so what human rights are these? Riding on a privately owned bus is a human right now? If she can't get a ride from a racist white man's bus company then she loses her human dignity? This is a bit of a stretch.

Actually, it's the law. From the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

You can read the rest yourself for the exhaustive description of a "public accommodation", but the short summary is that it includes any privately owned public space for engaging in commerce, including buses, lunch counters, hotels, restaurants, etc.
>> ^blankfist
:

Let's bring it back to what really happened in the real world that you and me live in. Rosa Parks' rights were violated by the government. She was forced to pay for the same public transit system which in return treated her unfairly.
The racist, private bus owner is a straw man.


The way you phrase this, it's like you think "the government" was some foreign entity imposing racial discrimination on the South without one lick of support amongst the population. The real story is that after 1964 you had government imposing integration on an unwilling (white) population, and there seem to be at least a few who're still mad about it.

Do you really think there was no one in the South in the 1960's who owned private businesses who refused to serve people on the basis of their skin color?

Since you're hung up on the public/private thing, how about Woolworth's lunch counters? Totally private, totally discriminatory.

Whose rights got violated there, and by who? The Woolworth's owner by the people who wouldn't leave when asked?

@NetRunner, you have to understand also, I'm completely in favor of people having living wages and benefits. I think too often businesses take advantage of their workers. So we're in agreement. We're just not in agreement how we arrive there.

Unfortunately with the amount of protectionism currently in place so many industries are forcing entrepreneurs out by making it difficult to compete against those companies already rooted in the industry (strict regulations, licensing, permits, taxes, and so on), and as a result competing is too expensive so the number of workers go up while the number of job creators goes down. Soon we'll all be working for Corporations.

That's what people like me want to stop. We won't change this trajectory by going down the same path we've been going down for the last hundred years. We have to face the facts that politicians are more willing to give attention to those with deep pockets than those with barely two nickels to rub together. The rich will always prevail within a human government, and no amount of legislation will change that. It hasn't in the past, and it won't in the future.

Just in case you require examples of protectionism that stifles competition, I have a great many. The recent banking coup is a good place to start. A lot of small and midlevel banks closed after the bailouts (WaMu! Fucking WaMu closed!), so now the big banks no longer have to compete against hundreds of banks. This was by design.

After prohibition the government forced a three tiered system onto the alcohol industry which keeps the two major beer manufacturers on top while the smaller brewers are being edged out. On even smaller levels, a lot of small businesses use government to keep new competitors out by pushing licensing and other expensive requirements onto new businesses. This happens often for hair salons, florists, casket manufacturing, and just about every small business industry in America. NY public transit union recently sought legal injunctions against local businessmen who offer cheap minivan rides throughout the city for much less than what the Metro can offer.

Lastly, look at the film industry. It's a mess. The unions and corporations have made it extremely difficult for independent filmmakers to shoot a film and have it distributed (though the internet is changing things a bit). And the cost of production in Los Angeles is through the roof, because of union fees, permit costs, etc. If you choose to use union actors for a non-union film you could face a pricey lawsuit. And not to mention how difficult it is for those who want to join the unions, with catch 22 rules like, "You must work 200 hours on a union film set to be admitted into the union, but you can't work on a union film shoot unless you're in the union." Funny how people still manage to get in.

Methinks, that some people 'methink' too hard about a video. We and you know why it got upvotes.

If you have the inside scoop to save-the-Universe™ then you should: get a job as a librarian and start shooshing the hell out of people even if they whisper (it says NO NOISE; except the loud shooshing of course), and then destroy some kids mp3 player while they're playing b-ball that was playing vulgar rap, and then pull out a ghetto blaster and pop in some Mozart. That's the way it should be.

This video to me needs no "I'm sorry I didn't immediately come to the conclusion that it could be meant for something else!" or "Jeez, I just thought it was a straightforward media screw up. I'm sorry I didn't notice in time, send me to the Gulag...".

Perception "preceptions".

Remember: Clowns see a balloon and think of ways to tie it into knots for children. Scientists see a balloon and wonder how it can blow up without popping, and then why and how it does pop.

Why is this "perception injunction" getting more popular on Videosift? Then people feel a need (or inclined) to apologize? It's one thing to point it out, it's another to demand (nearly) that all that made no such distinction, on a video from the Internet with no pre-context found to be amusing out of context, demands a "morale force brigade" to harangue anyone involved in this obvious malfeasance by the "Sifties" of the Videosift upvoting public.

Shame on us. Shame on us !

(*goes back to watching "Whose Line Is It" clips...*)

I agree. I also watched this last night on 60 minutes. I do not see why the press is not more sympathetic with his cause.

I for one can not see Asange being in trouble for his actions. The "Pentagon pagers" event from the early 70s is the same thing. that ended up at the Supreme court.

From Wikipedia

"On June 30, 1971, the Supreme Court decided, 6–3, that the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint injunction. The nine justices wrote nine opinions disagreeing on significant, substantive matters.
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
—Justice Black[16]"
>> ^JiggaJonson:

Edited or not, I watched this last night and thought that Assange carried himself well and had keen, honest responses to each question he was asked. I for one appreciate that there is a venue for those who want to speak out against abuses in organizations who would otherwise not be policed at all.

I'm sorry... how exactly does one apologize for being a supporter of atrocious medieval practices? And how exactly did he apologize?

He posted a completely idiotic rant on his page, not apologizing mind you, but excusing himself. Completely diferent.

Here's what he said:

I never called for the death of Salman Rushdie; nor backed the Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini--and still don’t. The book itself destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis.
When asked about my opinion regarding blasphemy, I could not tell a lie and confirmed that--like both the Torah and the Gospel--the Qur’an considers it, without repentance, as a capital offense. The Bible is full of similar harsh laws if you’re looking for them.[10] However, the application of such Biblical and Qur’anic injunctions is not to be outside of due process of law, in a place or land where such law is accepted and applied by the society as a whole... [11]

So basically he's saying: "hey, I didn't ask for his head. But if a court thinks his head should be cut off, then I'm ok with it". He's a fucking worthless piece of shit, who tries to cover his stance on this subject. Oh, and please notice the line about how the book destroyed the harmony between peoples and bla bla bla... OH... so it's the books' fault that people like you are idiots?? Oh.. what a wonderful apology.

Watching a beautiful sunset, enjoying a ballet, enjoying the natural beauty of female presenting her beauty to male, appreciating the glow of a rose, all are aspects of precious elements of our world as human beings. To not enjoy ballet because dancing is believed to be a perversion does not eliminate the beauty of the art, except in the inhibited and hence enslaved mind of the one making the negative judgement. Male appreciation of female is natural and beautiful and vice-versa. Female enjoyment and appreciation of male appreciation of them is natural and beautiful, and vice-versa. Human enjoyment of human is natural and beautiful. Sexual pleasure, which is probably the peak physical expression of human love and shared bliss, has been distorted and perverted by superstitions which utilize this beautiful expression of human love into an injunction, an injunction empowering the superstition. RESIST!! Just sayin' !

"Despite the "penalties" for an inappropriate use of takedown notice, I don't think there has been a single case ever where this has been applied."

See the public YouTube case of VenomFangX vs. Thunderf00t.

That's just how one false DMCA claim was handled (oddly enough, very similar situation - creationist wanted to stifle free thinker's free speech). There are many more where the DMCA's misuse has seen consequences, and some big names have had to say they were wrong. The EFF would probably be a good place to look, since they're usually involved wherever the DMCA is being invoked, and often, they help with legal expenses of those falsely accused of DMCA infraction (although both Thunderf00t and DonExodus2 both found pro bono help - it seems when it comes to the DMCA and getting a sure-fire case win, you can expect lawyers to come out of the woodwork to your aid).

If you file a DMCA notice on youtube, you are expected to sue the uploaders. If you don't, that's pretty much a given that you're not using the DMCA the way you're supposed to. By law, youtube has to share the takedown letter to the uploader (and they do), so that they can prepare for a lawsuit or counter-suit as the case may be.

Don't get me wrong. The DMCA was a horrible piece of legislation that proves that lawmakers are lazy, incompetent, and just plain out of touch with how the majority of this country thinks. But there's some teeth built into the bill to keep it from being used as a way to stifle free speech. If you're caught misusing the DMCA, you expose yourself to both legal and civil damage. If you cannot pay for your false claims, you can have an injunction placed against you from filing any further DMCA claims.

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
What good is that bigass staff if you can't smite people with it? C'mon, Bennie, swing that thing!!


I'll be encouraged if you're able to beat people with a staff when you're in your 80s.

Someone historically did take that "live by the sword, die by the sword, live by the Cross..." injunction literally though and went into battle, I recall reading, with a huge Cross. Given that I don't remember how it ended, I'm assuming poorly.