Some of these comments make me want to punch someone in the throat.

Only "gummint busybodies and religious crusaders" are going to be sympathetic? I think that you have spent too much time on the internet. It doesn't take crazy people to realize that nothing good comes from porn and that it is a destructive, disgusting, immoral industry. The majority of sane people believe this. It is not an unusual, backward, or unfounded notion. I don't think that people of my parents' generation realize the extent to which their sons and daughters are falling victim to the lie and becoming involved in or addicted to porn.

"If you want to play rambo and choose to go to war, don't complain when you get killed."

If we create a market for this filth, someone is going to do it. You remind me of those people during the industrial revolution that benefitted from child labor and deadly, abusive working conditions and said, "The poor dears." But, of course, the poor always have the faculties to raise themselves out of their situations. They choose to lead lives of poverty, right?

I realize that sex workers have more options than 19th century factory workers, but there is no way that working in the sex industry is psychologically healthy. Someone is always going to do it as long as the industry continues to grow.

Just like Lubben says, those who are involved defend the industry. I find that porn users defend porn like it's their firstborn. Regulate and make as many laws as you want. Porn is and always will be a plague on society.

Ew. I find this very unpleasant. No one in the clip seems to have a problem with this behavior. The woman encourages it (perhaps "ring girls" are used to it) and then she thanks him for both the interview and the dry humping. "Yes, I am an attractive female dressed in sexy clothing. You therefore have permission to violate me in any way you wish. I have no problem with sexual harrassment, because I am an object of pleasure." I think they are both kind of perverse and have little to no respect for themselves. As long as they stick together and stay away from me and mine, they are welcome to behave like *ehem* idiots.

LOVE this. It gave me chills.

This is hilarious if you're being sarcastic.

>> ^pipp3355:
This year in papakura, there were no deaths during the easter period.

Easter: the resurrection of Jesus from the dead on the third day from his crucifixion.

Atheists: just a coincidence?

I enjoyed that. I think that it didn't get any votes because of the "Michael Jackson Tribute" part of the title.

This is just great filmmaking. The sweetness, youth, and freshness of that boy's face and his angelic singing of a beautiful patriotic song coupled with his Nazi uniform and our 20/20 hindsight provide for a great scene that is truly rife with irony. It gives me unpleasant tingles down my spine.

Cabaret is a great film. It would have won Best Picture in 1972 if The Godfather hadn't come out in the same year. And Choggie was right that Joel Grey is the best thing about the movie.

I was disappointed by the lack of blood. 1:15 is cool.

Thank you! I always thought it was kinda sad that this video didn't get more votes.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
*promote

Thanks for the promote.

Yay! This was my first submission ever!

Sorry for lowering the tone, everyone. I don't even know from whence that came.

Sorry, Farhad2000. It was like 3 a.m. and I temporarily lost my temper. Sometimes I get all crazy when I imagine that I sense egoism or hostility. Not your fault. Totally my fault.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
QM is dealing in half truths again, the legal definition towards enemy combatants does apply to those currently held in Gitmo.

Pinky, yes this is a garbage conversation because the parallel can be drawn pretty easily just re title this post as "GOVERNMENT OPPRESSION - NEVER SAY NEVER?" you will see how fast the opinions change. Its the same thing. The torture programs were not voted in, they were not representative of the American people it was just enforced over night. The same thing can happen when the Government decides you as a citizen are a threat as well.

"Oh my gosh, guys. This discussion is beneath me. I've already given my opinion in such a discussion several times. That's why I'm only popping in to tell you that this argument isn't worth my attention. Oh and plus I just want to say this one thing..."

If you're disgusted by "this garbage," why did you even click, read, and comment? The rest of us are doing just fine and enjoying the discussion without you coming in here to congratulate yourself. I'll tell you what kind of garbage I'M tired of.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Not this garbage again.

I have participated in such a discussion 5 times or so on this site alone.

Every time some one comes and says "WELL IF THEY HAD A NUKE AND U HAD 1 GUY U COULD GET INFO IF TORTURE WHAT THEN?!?!"

Never mind that shit never ever ever happened in the real world.

RE:Cheney and CIA memos. LOL! Please 2 memos? Explain why not a single intelligence apparatus of the US refuses to acknowledge Cheney's statements. Not to mention countless reports over the Bush years have shown that the Administration cherry picked CIA intelligence to support their cases. See Curveball intelligence re:Iraq and WMDS.

FAIL. PLEASE TRY AGAIN LATER.

You asked us to think of how things are, not how they ought to be. Well, the fact is that there will probably never be a "ticking time bomb" scenario to the extent that we discuss it in our torture debates. Why don't we just make the decision never to use torture RIGHT NOW, and then we will never have to make the decision again however sorely we are tempted?

I have been using this idea for most of my life. A very mild example is my decision to never drive my car to school because I live close to campus. I made that decision once, and I never have to make it again. It may be raining out, I may be late for class, I may be tired that day, but those things don't tempt me because I already made my decision. However, I know that there are certain situations that are unlikely but which may force me to drive or to get a ride. If I injured myself, for instance.

What is we made the decision never to use torture so that we were never tempted to use it, even for a really good reason? That is what our government has been doing: Using torture for really good reasons.

We all agree that torture is wrong, but it isn't black and white (only Sith deal in absolutes). However, I think that we should make the decision NOW to never use torture. We know that torture works and that we have prevented tragedies by its use. But torture is wrong. We have to think about the precedence that we are setting, the example that we are to the rest of the world, and our moral obligation. In the long run, the lives that are immediately at stake are less valuable than the ideal. The ideal must be kept and the moral upheld.

One theory of Ethics is that human suffering determines whether something is moral or immoral. If it decreases the happiness in the world, it is right. If it increases the happiness in the world, it is wrong. I don't agree with this usually, but it is pertinent to our discussion. We don't like death because it causes great suffering, but is death really the worst thing that could ever happen to somebody? No, not at all. Torture also causes suffering. So, if we break a moral code and torture someone to save 10,000 lives, will we ultimately be causing more suffering by giving the world and ourselves permission to do it in the future? I think we might. If the United States of America tortures, what are we saying to the world? How much suffering are we causing by losing our high moral ground? Probably a lot more that we realize.

But there is still that big question: WHAT IF? The way that I see it is that we either need to set a very specific, very strict line at which torture is justified, or else we never, ever use it no matter what. If we use torture only for "really good reasons," the situation will deteriorate. We will continually be tempted by a lower standard each time we do it. But if we make the decision only to "use our car" when we are injured and have no choice, we'll never be tempted to use our car when it's raining.

But THEN you're faced with the dilemma of choosing the point at which torture could be justified. How do you determine that? I don't know that it can possibly be done. I have difficulty with the idea that the justification increases with the number of lives lost. 5 lives aren't worth the torture of one man, but 10,000 lives are? There is no way to come to a conclusion about that. I think that it is an impossible standard to set.

That is my long-winded way of saying that the worst-case scenario will probably never happen and that torture should never, ever, ever be legal. Perhaps morally, we could justify using torture in certain situations. Perhaps. But I don't think that a government purposely allowing torture is ever, ever okay. Maybe at some future day we will be faced with a situation where we have a man in custody and we are 100% sure that he has knowledge that can save 1 million lives. We tried being "friendly", but it didn't work. If that ever occurs, I hope that we will have a law in place that forbids torture. I also hope that I am there to break the law and torture the fool.

I fell asleep several times as I wrote this, so it may not make sense.

Deedub, I really like everything you said, especially the part about people being less and less interested in defending the common good. I wish it weren't true.

I think that this is what I was trying to get at when I described sifters who complain and wait for someone else to fix their problems. On top of that, some think that we are powerless to affect change ever again? Yikes. This over-dependence on government is something of our own making. Americans shouted, "Please! More regulation! More programs! Here's more power for you! And take my money while you're at it!" Meanwhile, we started believing that government is out of our hands. Doesn't that tell you something? Bigger government=less power in the hands of the people. Your freedoms slowly disappear, but at first the big government is a good bandage. You don't even notice that your freedoms are slowly disappearing. (Wow, I think that was incredibly vague.)

One constant of our government: It has almost continuously been growing larger and instituting more and more regulations since the turn of the century. Meanwhile, people feel less and less powerful and involved in government. Big surprise? I think not.

Many people who voted for Obama are already experiencing disillusionment. They suffered through Bush and made a pretty passive stink about him, then elected Obama hoping for an efficient fix. Our representative system has become almost perverse in the way that we think that voting and talking is enough, and that politicians (given irresponsible power) are going to take care of everything. Obama can't and won't carry out all of his promises or ideals because Obama is a politician, not a savior.

A key point that you made is that anything worth civil disobedience is worth our jobs. This idea has been lingering in the back of my mind. I read these impassioned arguments and I wonder if anyone feels strongly enough to actually do something about it. Apparently they don't.