It is only murder if the state considers the killing to be unlawful. Someone who kills and is prosecuted (and found guilty) for murder is someone who has committed murder. If a woman kills her unborn child, it is only murder if the state has decided that killing unborn children is murder. If abortion is legal, it is not murder to kill the unborn child.

To say that the state is putting roadblocks in place to prevent women from committing murder is a rather absurd misunderstanding of what the existing US laws actually are.

I'm thinking it may be you. I can see the options. Although they do disappear after a second of the video playing and don't appear at all until i start the video, but it's always been that way im pretty sure. Have to scroll over the video for them to reappear.

http://i.imgur.com/Nscb7Mk.png

Of course maybe im misunderstanding what you're referring to as im not sure what 'on embeds' is about.

@radx

I think you misunderstand the Swiss referendum. It's about preventing banks from creating money through fractional lending, it doesn't restrict the central bank. Typically banks will take in deposits and lend a portion out (keeping a % as a capital buffer), that money then filters through the system and some of if returns as deposits, and the process repeats (hence the term fractional banking).

In effect banks are creating money through lending out more money than otherwise exists. It also means they lend out far in excess of the deposits they have, creating high leverage and meaning even a small level of default can lead to them eating through their capital and insolvency (see US in 2008). The referendum seems to be about effectively preventing fractional lending.

No idea what effect it would have in a country like Switzerland. The country is an exception as it has a relatively small economy but is seen globally as a safe haven currency meaning every time there is a crisis you see the CHF appreciate rapidly (similar to the USD). Naturally that tends to wreck havoc with the economy and exports since the currency value no longer reflects the real economy and is why the central bank has taken various measures to discourage it in the past.

@bareboards2
yeah.i do not understand why he was hanging around while she talked shit.

it appears he may have messed her stuff up,and was looking for something that may have dropped.

we really do not know though.could be anything.could be he gave her boobs a goose for all we know.

we DO know that she was verbally abusing him.

i know i would have walked away.i have encountered women like this all through my life.apologizing just gets you a litany of new insults,and as long as you remain in their vicinity...the insults will only continue and get even more derogatory.

walking away is the best policy.

the majority of times that sufficed to appease their inner rage demon.maybe they would throw a few zingers at my back,but i never really gave a shit.more power to her..they are just words flying out of an entitled little girl who cant behave like an adult.

but...

on a few occasions.
the girl would follow right behind me,and continue to berate and harass me.possibly seeing my retreat as a sign of weakness.i really dont know.what i DO know,is that is a blatant sign of stupidity to take your 5"3" 110lb ass and try to jam it into my face as if you were rhonda rousey.

i have never hit a woman.
but i will not allow a woman to put her hands on me,especially when she has been verbally abusive and aggressive with me.

so the girls who have thought it totally ok to escalate the situation with physical violence,i have always responded in the same fashion: they get one shot.ONE.and then i whip around (and guys who have gotten into fights understand this) and in the most threatening and physically imposing manner,plainly let her know "ok thats ONE.go ahead and hit me again.i fucking DARE you.go ahead and hit me again and see what happens.because if you hit me again you are taking the place of a man,and AS a man i will knock you the fuck out".

i actually learned that from my dad.
one of the kindest and most gentle people you will have ever met,but his advice worked like a charm.

can you guess how many of those girls went for hit # 2?

thats right...none.

ya know.people get angry.
people can misunderstand a situation and react angrily.
humans will encounter conflict throughout our lives,and it is a testament to wisdom,intelligence and patience how we deal with those conflicts.

and there is never a time where it is ok to put your hands on another person,except for in self-defense.

so when a woman puts her hands on a man.
i dont care what level the rage meter is at,she should never put her hands on him.

for a few reasons:
1.its wrong.
2.you dont get a free pass because you own a uterus.
3.violence is never the proper choice for conflict resolution.
4.and most important.would you ever in your life walk up to a grizzly bear with a stick and start poking him? would you cry and whine about the unfairness of it all when that bear rips your face off?

use a little common sense and everything will be fine.

and did ya'all catch this womans glee?
the mere idea of her male friends killing this dude made her flush with excitement.that is a tad disturbing,but expected with such low quality females such as these.

experienced a bunch of women in that category as well.

but thats a story for another day.

simply put:this woman escalated the situation by making it physical and got popped in the mouth.
and thats all it was..a pop.
got her attention though didnt it?

so advice to all my lady friends here on the sift.
you have a right to your anger,your outrage and your indignation.
you do NOT have the right to be hitting,smacking or punching guys willy nilly without consequences.

and while i agree with BB (and others) that the dude should have just walked away,i will not put that responsibility solely on him.how is it HIS responsibility to control this womans actions.she hit.she got popped.
end of story.

Did you just misunderstand Gary Oldman? has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash on that post.

Assuming this is true, he probably did it to diffuse the misunderstanding. Maybe even specifically out of irritation at how stupid and easily fooled people are. At least irritation with others would have been my motivation in this scenario.

I think you still misunderstand. I don't mean it would hang from above, it would balance on it's contact point. In that way, it would 'hang', but the point of contact would be pointing down in contact with the top of the 2cm cylinder and the bulk of the mass in a ring hanging below that point. To exaggerate for clarity, think of a soda can with the top cut off, turned upside down, and balanced on a pin touching the exact center of the inner can 'bottom'...then spin it.
My idea is a top EXACTLY as they made it, except the weighted ring is much lower, so the CG is below the point. Then, when set on the pedestal, it would be stable when stationary (when set on a counter, the point would not touch). I can't see why that would change when spun as long as the CG stays below the point and balanced/centered.
It would balance when stationary, no question. My only question is what might happen when you spin it, would the rotation make the CG 'want' to be above the contact point for some reason, or would nothing happen. I don't have a lathe to make one myself to try, so I thought someone well versed in rotational physics might know.

Many self professed feminists believe it is about hating men too, but I assume "no true feminist" would ever do that right?

I wasn't trying to wilfully misunderstand you, but rather to pursue my whole contention about any political/social argument:

Individual People and specific arguments over ideologies always.

When the reverse is true and ideology is placed before people or the specific merits of an argument, the result is dehumanising and anti-intellectual (even if by the slimmest margins sometimes).

That's not to say that, where mutual understanding already exists, ideological terms are completely useless. But the moment individuals disagree, those ideological assumptions are going to get in the way of a productive dialogue.

My whole point I guess is that this seems rather anti-humanist if you will pardon the irony of taking an ideological position.
If as a humanist one believes that the optimal way is for everyone to be judged only on the merits of their individual words, deeds and capacity.

Rather than by culture, race, gender or some other involuntary and/or irrelevant factors.

Assuming you agree in principle with that definition of humanism in terms of goals, then what we are arguing here really is collectivism vs individualism.

You are suggesting we can get better results by pushing the "right" version of said ideology and suppressing the "wrong", correct?

I am arguing ultimately that we seem to get better results in the long term, by encouraging free and critical thought and allowing all ideas (no matter how egregious) a fair fight.

This puts me contrary to many tenets of the various feminist ideologies and concordant with others. Sometimes wildly so.

If I want to try to be a good humanist, I have no choice but to try and understand each on their own terms.

When someone describes themselves as a "Feminist", that could mean anything from "kill all men" to "women should have fundamental legal equality".

It seems almost as redundant as racial and cultural epithets, it tells me very little really important about you or how you really think, to know you are Black, or White or Asian or Polish, Spanish etc. etc. It's just another excuse to put an idea above the person in front of you or to not have to think too much about ones own.

i.e. Collectivist thinking.

I think this may represent the very antithesis of intellectual progress.

However I am a Hegelian and I just defined a Thesis-antithesis relationship............ That means the next great breakthrough should lie in the synthesis of the two.......

................

Collective individualism! All we should need is a mass movement of free critical thought and.....bollocks.

It's over people, we have officially peaked as a species! I'm calling it

Ironically, a lot of the more hardline early feminists didn't like the term feminist at all because they didn't think it went far enough.

but...OK FINE. I'll dignify the intentional misunderstanding to get it out of the way. My brand. My opinion. My perspective. Are we done with the whole "that's just your opinion man" bs now because I don't see how it's relevant.

That's your association not mine . I'd rather take the risk and hope I can make some positive associations with the word thanks rather than surrender it because some people think it is about hating men.

Okay, and let me clarify were you did indeed say it should be forever held against him.

"Yes, it's OK, and normal, for future employers to investigate potential applicants and disqualify them if they show insanely poor judgement publicly like this guy did. You think that's not OK?"

I am owner Newt of Newt's Fabrications and Misunderstandings. I see this guy applying and look into his past. Would YOU hire this guy? Would you, as a black employer perhaps, offer this guy a job working with other black employees?

No? So moving on. You think Walmart wants this racist? Even 20 years from now? Why the fuck would they do that when they have a plethora of job applicants to do that?

So he moves on to Lawdeedaw's Lawn Service. I barely pay minimum wage, and I work him like a dog. Since I am the job he can get, he takes me up. His history is held against him and he has to settle.

Oh, kinda like what happens to blacks who just want to be productive...and have committed past crimes.

Edit Added Later:

Oh, and enouch and VooDooV "defend" this guy much more than me...yet you implied I was a racist douchebag...in fact I never defended him at all and left them out...oddly enough...

In fact I
1-Attacked most businesses as greedy.
2-Said most racists like him are just too proud to take government funds (But I didn't elaborate as to how/why.)
3-And stated that the past should not indefinitely be held against people.

Unless I missed a post from myself (possible) I never even said this guy should keep his job...

no mistaken assumption my friend.
just looking at the bigger picture is all.

was the "company" really disgusted by this mans behavior?
or were they performing damage control?
i suspect the latter.

which is why i brought up the PC police and the inherent dangers within.i even referenced a case in canada which had gone too far.(in my opinion).

does the company have a right to fire him? short answer? yes.
but nobody is asking about this mans rights,and if they are honest with themselves it is because he is a grotesque example of a human being.

so you try to further your point by doing a thought experiment,and i hate thought experiments,but ok..lets play:
what if he was advocating the legalization of sex with prepubescent children?

ah my friend.
this is easy.
the answer is arrest and convict.
but why you may ask?

here is where i think you may be misunderstanding my argument and your thought experiment reveals this quite plainly.

to YOU.this example of child sex and our racist turdnugget here are the same.

they are not.

because advocating to legalize child sex is an "intent to harm".the adovcating will result in actual harm of actual children.see:child pornography.

while turdnugget here has actually harmed no one.
nobody was actually harmed.
maybe disgusted.
maybe a feeling or two.

lets try another thought experiment.
what if this man was filmed not being an ugly racist but rather smoking weed with some buddies.

should he be fired?

another one:what if he is filmed at a sanders rally (unlikely) and the president of the company is a die-hard trump supporter?

should he be fired?

look,it is easy to view this man losing his job as some kind of justice,but we need to be honest why we are ok with THIS man getting fired and that reason is simply that he is grotesque and offensive.

but he did not actually HARM anyone.he was just offensive and IS offensive to our sensibilities.

i agree that there is an irony in this situation.the man verbally attacks a perceived threat to his livelihood,and then loses that livelihood.

it may have a certain poetry to it,but is that justice?
no.

the larger argument is this:when is it considered normal or acceptable to hold people to a company standard when they are:
not working.
not in uniform.
not representing the company in ANY way.
are not getting paid for this off time.
are engaging in activities which are harming no one but may be viewed as contrary to company standards?


where is the line drawn?
and who draws that line?
who enforces it?

while the company has a right to fire you for any reason it wishes,does it have a right to impose behavior,activities,personal life choices when you are not on the clock?

with the PC police engaging in ever more draconian and bullying tactics to impose their own sense of morality upon others,based on what THEY feel is righteous and morally correct.i feel this will get out of hand very quickly,and the canadian example i used is only one of many.

here is one thing i do not understand.
how come when the religious right uses tactics very similar to this,we all stand up and shout "fuck you buddy",but when the PC police behave in an almost identical fashion....people applaud.

that is just NOT a morally consistent stance.
it is hypocritical.

so maybe in the short run we can view this ugly example of a human being and think to ourselves that some form of justice was served,but that is a lie.it may make us feel good and tickle our moral compass as somehow being a righteous outcome to a reprehensible piece of shit,but it is no way justice.

in the larger context and taken to its logical conclusion:this moral calculus could be a future metric to impose obedience and compliance from,not just turdnugget,but EVERYBODY...and that includes you.

and THAT is something that i find extremely disturbing.

the PC police are having a real impact,with real consequences and even though they may have the best of intentions,the real result is social control,obedience and compliance.

i would rather i keep my liberty and freedoms to do as i wish.the PC police can suck a bag of dicks.

I don't know about truth, I'm not even sure he's real. Statements like "Those people advocate for the overthrow of our legally constituted government", show a significant misunderstanding of how governing bodies work, and is one of the most poignant examples I've seen in my life of cognitive dissonance as it relates to american citizens.

No only is the process for overthrow of our government literally written into its constitution, but no one should have to point out the fallacy in the logic of "A wrote B which approved of A, therefore A is righteous because B says so."

Yes, that's true, but is one exempt from that if one is PART of congress? I hope not, but perhaps.
As I saw it, when he said HE pulled the chart directly from planned parenthood's corporate records, that was testimony being offered to the other members of congress in the hearing, not a question, and it was clearly, intentionally, blatantly false testimony at that.
He said HE pulled the information and created the chart...which was an obvious and bold faced lie, it was not a mistake, not a misunderstanding, it was a lie. Unfortunately, I'm also fairly certain absolutely zero will come of it.

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.