It's a good movie, but sometimes it seemed like an "Explaining things to Ellen Page" lecture.

Apprehend them and keep your mouth shut. They don't need a lecture and you don't need to reason.

@Bruti79
right on.
thanks for replying.

neuroscience is your answer in regards to consciousness eh?
how...unsatisfying.
the answer is no answer at all man.

let me try for you:
we dont know.
BUT we are making great strides in neuro transmitters and neuroscience and microbiology that it is possible that one day we WILL know.
but as of today?
we dont know,and what we dont know is a LOT.

see? better.

and your response concerning love!
breath-taking!
"We fall in love, or hate, or feel "meh" about something because of the stuff in our brain that makes our personalities"

how romantic!
ok..its not.im just being a huge ass.
in fact i am being a wicked smart-ass period.
thanks for putting up with me.

it irks me when people talk in regards to consciousness or love with a conviction that i know is not warranted.
but thanks for being a good sport about it.

in regards to type 1 diabetes.yeah...no diet is going to reverse that.sorry timmy.

maybe you thought i was trying to sell ya a bill of goods.i wasnt.
check that video out.
its a lecture by a doctor whose field is in disease and microbiology.
HE is the guy who proved that a plant based diet can reverse type 2 diabetes (not in all,but many)AND how a plant based diet can help prevent cancer and sometimes cure it.

he is entertaining,witty and its super informative.

if i didnt love double bacon cheeseburgers so much i would go vegan,but whenever i know i am eating too far on the crappy scale i watch that video and it pulls me back to reality,or the meat lovers pizza.
whatever..dont confuse me with details!

i know better than to try to get you guys to listen to my fluffernutter philosophies.
you guys are all about your religion..i mean science..yes.science!

it is all pretty exciting to me as well.
thanks man.stay awesome.

A Voice for Men?

Fuck this shit, start a fight club you pussy pieces of shit, scared of women having any sort of power losers. I'm tired of getting lectured that my life is being controlled by women and they're destroying it. They're people, of course they're destroying it, it has nothing to do with the fact that they're women.

These sexist fucks should be ignored, get a fucking lawyer and fight whatever you think is going on that's wrong. I can pretty much guarantee that he's full of shit though. It's like White Supremacists saying they just want to defend White Mens rights.

@alien_concept

Thanks! I was struggling to come up with a username, and then I just decided to accept my true nature.

And this is a timeless issue that I think we've all run into at times. A woman comes to a man to talk about her emotions. The man sees that she has a problem, and tries to help her solve it. This frustrates the woman - she only wanted to share her troubles with him, and she feels insulted that he would assume she is incapable of solving her own problems. This, in turn, frustrates the man; after all, why would she come to him if she won't accept his help? He's sincerely doing his best, and he feels that she is being unfair and overly emotional.

A fight ensues, and neither party understands how it even happened, or how to find a way out of it.

And as I have a VERY emotional mother and VERY rational father, I've been on both sides, as well as in the middle, of this conflict many times.

As for Assange, he once said that Sweden is the "Saudi Arabia of feminism," and having grown up here, I can vouch for the veracity of that statement.

It has gotten to the point here that most guys are just too afraid to stand up to even the most obvious acts of bigotry because the one-way sexism has become so widely accepted. We're only left with three choices; we either accept the abuse and join in it ourselves, or we simply give up and take it with a sort of hopeless resignation.

Since I can't stand to be victimized, I favour the third option; pointing out the bullshit and then riposting with facts, logic and righteous anger.

But I've had some utterly INSANE examples of sexism happen in the classroom, including a teacher derailing a lecture right at the beginning of it and instead spending her entire hour to essentially claim that all men are either rapists or potential rapists, and as a guy, it's just difficult to know what to do in that situation.

It's also very hurtful, as I find rape to be one of the most despicable acts imaginable.

And... that's why my reaction to this guy's poem was so strong. It's like he's been abused for so long that he's begun to think that it's actually true.

You gave your son a very good answer! Men and women are different from one another (though this isn't entirely set in stone), and I think that anybody who claims otherwise simply prefers ideology or fantasy (same thing, really) over reality.

And for what it's worth, I think those differences are pretty freaking valuable. I love women, and part of the reason for that is the fact that they aren't men.

This is the transcript for every physics lecture I listen to.

Racist idiot baits fundamentalist idiots, and the world keeps getting slightly worse...

Also @artician, no, this isn't a mock-up. Vilks was invited to hold a lecture on freedom of speech at Uppsala university, and to illustrate that he chose to show part of Sooreh Hera's photo series 'Allah ho gaybar'. Since everybody knew he was a racist asshole who deliberately wanted to provoke Muslims, a bunch of fundamentalist Muslims who wanted to be deliberately provoked showed up at his lecture. Idiots met idiot, and combusted.

Oh and since he'd been getting death threats for his previous hijinks (depicting the prophet Muhammad as a dog), the cops were on hand for this occasion.

I'm boring? It took you the equivalent of a book to answer a few simple questions. Did I as for a lecture on the oath of office? No. Did I ask for a lecture on the forth estate? No.

You used one as an excuse the other as a reason but nether answered the questions.

Finely after all the dogma I get an answer. A piss poor answer but its better than you rehashing the same thing for a forth time.

So Lets look at what you provided.

First Article.
Shit.. An article repeating the same dogma again for a forth time.....

Second Article.
FINELY! Examples! was that so hard? Really?
and it shows. Nothing that was not already known. (My Opinion)

"A Pentagon spokesman told the New York Times this week that under its procedure, when reports of Iraqi abuse were received the US military "notifies the responsible government of Iraq agency or ministry for investigation and follow-up".

If you know a better way?


So what did his leaks really do?

Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Martin Nehring, a classification expert who submitted written testimony, said that upon reviewing the information Manning released, he discovered that it included techniques for neutralizing improvised explosives, names of enemy targets, names of criminal suspects and troop movements, according to The Guardian.

Navy Reserve Lt. Cmdr. Thomas Hoskins also reviewed the documents and found potentially damaging information, including codewords, tactics and techniques for responding to roadside bombings, weapon capabilities, and assistance the U.S. military had received in tracking down suspects from foreign nationals, The Guardian reported.

These are just some of the reasons I consider him a traitor. This put people at risk.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/bradley-manning-wikileaks-trial-prosecution


He should of just released documentation on what he thought were the crimes or corruption. Not all of it and defiantly not that information.

Yes those are good points, however one thing I've found in my studies (in part, sitting through an ethics class every week for the past 2 years) and elsewhere is that the Nazi regime is used as a way of objectively describing what 'bad' is and contemporary examples are overlooked. The main examples of this 'bad' are the way in which they conducted human research, the genocide they committed and the fear they instilled in their own population to be obedient through the SS, propaganda etc. Of course there are many other examples but those are a few of the main ones. The issue I always have sitting there listening to these lectures is that we are turning a blind eye to what is happening in the world today, it's easy to understand why if you do a bit of thinking on the matter, but most people don't seem to be able to do that, or they are simply too scared to talk about it for fear of reproach.

So to start with, I could name countless things that America (and other countries such as the UK/France etc) has done over the past 50 years that would make any rational person cringe if they hadn't known about it previously, however you can find those things out yourself with a little research on the internet, so there's no point listing them here (and I'm sure you know many of them already anyway). I think what is important is why these things don't seem as objectively bad to you as what's been done in the past. The answer would have to be pretty complex, however I think one reason is that things are not done as overtly these days. Wars are often waged by proxy, or people are led to 'buy in' to the excuses that are often given to begin wars, change leaderships etc.

I mean, it's easy to think, ,OK so the Nazi's sent around death squads to ensure people were obedient and that's objectively bad, but how does one quantify how immoral or unethical it is to watch/listen to and record almost the entire world's digital communication exchange between individuals and groups and then have the ability to send drones with bombs on them to kill anyone they feel like (with an unknown amount of collateral damage) without fear of reproach. No reproach being literal, the US has ~half the worlds military expenditure after all.

Now you might say, well nobody is knocking on my door making sure I'm pro-Obama and killing my entire family if I'm not, however I think the thing people often overlook, and it comes back to my previous two points. These things are happening in other countries and they are often by proxy, so to fully comprehend the level of immorality the US has sunk to, one first has to educate oneself on all these events, then one has to have enough empathy to care about the events and people involved, then one has to be educated enough in morals and ethics to be able to make some measurement as to how bad they are.

In my opinion it's a tall order to get most people to understand/learn all these things, most people are too worried about keeping their jobs, looking after their families or friends etc. Even those that meet all those requirements won't all agree that these things are bad, and even if they know they are bad, they are too fearful to speak their mind about it, or perhaps they have a specific agenda (i.e. someone like Jay Carney who is paid to spout BS for the president all day). There are lots of ways things can be justified, and lots of angles that can be taken in arguments.

So I guess my point is that despite the fact things are not as bad for you as they would have been under the Nazi regime, that doesn't mean millions of people in dozens of countries are not being oppressed in similar ways to what they would have been back then. the US doesn't precisely meet Emilio Gentile's definition of a Fascist state, however it meets many of the criteria, and I think if you look at the big picture (primarily what's happening in countries that the US wants resources from) you can see that @Fusionaut's remark wasn't too far off the mark.

@Chairman_woo -- I'm not hostile towards shiny. I don't use "ignore" in a hostile way. I just don't want to see it. It's too much. As I said above, we rarely see HIM. Years back, I attempted to engage with him as a person, told him I needed to hear something else from him, asked him some non-offensive personal questions (what are your hobbies, that sort of thing).

Just to get past the wall of words and lecture and see the person.

Nothing. He gave me back nothing.

I'm not hostile. I'm indifferent.

If you put someone on ignore, the wall of text collapses to a single line that you don't have to scroll through endlessly.

And @chingalera -- curiosity got the better of me, and I did read your response to my post. And yes, you are still on ignore. Again, not from hostility. It is about the same thing as shiny -- I just don't see YOU enough. It is all attitude and attempting to pick a fight. Why would I bother with that?

@BoneRemake, who is now gone, now banned, was pretty much roundly disliked here on the Sift. Difficult, argumentative, loved to rile people up and get them mad. Him I adored. Because he wasn't just that. When he wasn't being a pain, he was sweet, creative, generous, funny. He loves to cook. He loves to make things. He loves music.

Bone is a person. I miss him. But ching -- for me, I just see a wall of attitude. Shiny for me is a wall of preaching.

There is "no one home" for me with you guys. And if you are not home for me, then I am not home for you.

No hostility. Choice.

@shinyblurry, just so you know.... I have you on "ignore".

It's too much, shiny. Too many words, too many posts, too much repetition of same old, same old.

Too much of this, and very very little of YOU. The person. The human.

You don't show up as a human being. So I am exercising my right to exit the "relationship."

I see that you responded to a post I made. Haven't a clue what you said. I suspect it was a big long repetitive lecture in my direction. But if somewhere in there, you asked me a question?

You'll never get an answer.

Would it be the one that condemns rape victims to death, or to marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-29)?

Exodus 22:17

If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, she shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.

The father is the one who makes the decision and he was under no obligation to allow his daughter to be married to a rapist. The punishment was on the rapists side, that he would have to pay the bride price, and if the family agreed, to stay permanently married to the girl.

Or maybe it's the one that says you must stone disobedient children to death (Deuteronomy 21:18)?

"This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard"

It is not just a disobedient child, but a rebellious and morally depraved child. Yes, it is a harsh punishment, but God made the punishment harsh because Israel had a covenant with Him to be holy and they were to bring forth the Messiah.

Possibly you are referring to the correct method for beating your slaves (Exodus 21:20) ?

Exodus 21:20 details the punishment for beating a slave to death. The purpose of the law was to protect slaves.

How prisoners of war should be put to death (Deuteronomy 20:13) ?
Sorry, my bad, that's only male prisoners. You get to forcibly marry the women, unless they don't please you (at which point you can toss them out on their ear) Deuteronomy 21:11

Deuteronomy 21:11 wasn't commanded by God; it was an addition by Moses:

Mar 10:5 And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'
Mar 10:7 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,
Mar 10:8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

I do so love being lectured on morals by the likes of you.

Most of the objections here have either been misinterpreted, or misapplied, and none of them are valid today. The civil and ceremonial laws given to Israel, and Israel only, were done away with when Jesus died on the cross. The total absence of any objection to what Jesus taught us about morality is what speaks volumes in the arguments you present, because there is nothing to be said about it except to praise it. If everyone followed the teachings of Jesus something like a utopia would dawn. If you want to understand the morality that comes from God, read what Jesus taught about it instead of playing the gotchya game with the Old Testament trying to find an excuse to ignore what Jesus said.

Which absolute moral law would that be?

Would it be the one that condemns rape victims to death, or to marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-29)?

Or maybe it's the one that says you must stone disobedient children to death (Deuteronomy 21:18)?

Possibly you are referring to the correct method for beating your slaves (Exodus 21:20) ?

How prisoners of war should be put to death (Deuteronomy 20:13) ?
Sorry, my bad, that's only male prisoners. You get to forcibly marry the women, unless they don't please you (at which point you can toss them out on their ear) Deuteronomy 21:11

I do so love being lectured on morals by the likes of you.

can someone tell me what lecture / event this is from?

Controversial Red Flag 2008 lecture on F-15 vs. Su-30 MKI has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.