Wow...calling Dr. Freud. You just keep digging yourself into a deeper hole.

first you're obsessed with your lesbian friend, now you're fantasizing about being raped in prison. I can't believe you went there. I mean the whole being raped is one thing...but is going to prison a real possibility for you to think about yourself in that scenario???

nevermind the whole hyper-inflated ego that seems to make insecure people such as yourself think that gay people just won't be able to resist themselves and rape you the first chance they get.

You just seem to be thinking about the activities of homosexuals...

...a lot.

I think you've got some serious soul searching to do.

I knew a guy like you. constantly defensive. most often heard words out of his mouth were gay jokes, Constantly bringing up what the gay people at work were doing even though no one cared. constantly accusing them of being attention whores..yet he was the one who made the biggest fuss about it...He was constantly talking about this other guy who had quit years ago as someone found out that he had a sex change. No one cared. Or if they did, they kept it to themselves for the most part. Except for this guy...

All I can say is that you have to be honest with yourself dude.

For someone who doesn't care, you're having a real hard time walking away.

And if they were less cute and provided decent nutrition, we'd eat them, so what?

Fighting starvation is not a great indicator of anything, you might eat another human or yourself if you were in a situation that warranted it. I don't think I need to defend against the circle of life, we're the very last species that can frown on another animal for eating something smaller than it.

Enjoying and giving affection is not an exclusive condition, you don't have to *always* and *only* love your one owner constantly. That'd just be annoying.

I believe in research, it suggests cats are quite affectionate to their owners, it is simply not displayed in ways that humans typically understand. Experiments done by people who actually want to understand cat behaviour and not just contrast it to that of a dog, find that cat expression is rather complicated and subtle. It requires long and repeated observation, cats are not suited to these 10minute experiments.

It's an ongoing study, some if it is really quite new, you can look it up or you can continue not caring, I'm not particularly fussed. Thankfully I don't need validation to enjoy the relationship I have with my cat, I don't think it wants only me and I don't have a problem with that, I do think she feels we're rather good friends. That's something I'm happy with.

I created a plus account on another email and I have to wonder what the fuss is about. The only thing that might be useful would appear to be Hangouts. Else it's just Google wanting their own Facebook.

I broadly agree with what he's saying but he's wrong about Africa. Africa is different because the west's supply chains and the gimping of local resistance to this is already very strong and much more well established (also Somalia was in Africa last time I checked Wes).

The global supply of Gold, Diamonds, Cocoa and Coltan (used to make micro electronics) amongst others are all heavily based in African countries.
Were their supply to be jeopardised (especially Coltan) by local politics you can be assured that the relevant African country would swiftly become a scorching political hot potato.
Unfortunately such a good job as been done over the last 100 or so years of suppressing African development that such problems (with a little encouragement) tend to take care of themselves before they become a big deal. Then western interests can just back whichever co-operative warlord/corrupt regime comes out on top, quietly and without fuss.

The spice must flow!

Simply put, Africa has been beaten around by the west for that bit longer and harder than the middle east. The exploitation of Africa goes back 100's of years and around 100 years ago when western powers began to cede their direct control they made sure to fuck up the local cultural politics so badly that most countries have still yet to recover from the fallout.

The middle east only became a candy store about 60-100 years ago with the oil boom. Before that western attempts to control the middle east were largely religious in nature (though no less brutal I suppose).

I assume the "powers that shouldn't be" are well aware of this and as such the plan to which Mr. Clarke is referring represents a scheme to try and break the back of the middle east financially, politically and culturally while they still can.

That said old ideologies die hard and I suspect the old western religious motivation is still not to be downplayed. The Christian ideologues and Jewish Zionists may not use words like "Kafir" but in some way their beliefs demand that they think of outsiders in the same way.

If the God of Abraham does really exist I'm sure he finds this whole arrangement greatly amusing (I imagine nothing pleases an ego maniac more than watching sycophants fighting and killing each other for your affection).

God must die. God must remain dead. And we must kill him.

I'm still waiting for Obama to do something remotely close to Hitler, cause when he steps down peacefully in 3 years, what is everyone going to do?

It's really annoying that people who are proven wrong time and time again cling to their stupid Obama is the next Hitler or the Antichrist. If he just leaves without a fuss he's not close to Hitler you idiots, Hitler was a dictator at LEAST.

I'm watching Dota2's International and I can move the camera around just like this. Whats the big fuss?

Impressive tech.

This version has better video and English subtitles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZveBqA4xy0A#at=87

Also (from Slate): “Please sit down, I am a simple man who does not like to be fussed over," Stewart said in Arabic, according to CBS News.

>> with all kinds of drama and tests, and poking and prodding.

In the western world, infant and maternal mortality has plummeted thanks to improved hygiene and good medical care, but these days there is a big emphasis on offering choice to the woman. In the UK If the pregnancy is deemed low risk then midwife only hospital delivery is offered as a basic right and the women can choose often choose pool birth, or home birth if they wish.
The latest NICE guidelines even go so far as to say that a woman should be able to ask for a c-section even if not medically indicated.
If the woman opts for something like opiate pain relief or an epideural then of course it becomes more medicalised but again it's a choice.

When you are on your second or third child, it often just pops out with little fuss where as the first baby is much more of an unknown. I'd be a lot less worried about a lady like this who has had 3 normal deliveries which i assume were uncomplicated.

The only think i'd say here is that babies get cold very quickly and so should be dried quickly rather than doused in brook water.

Well Hamas wouldn't be Hamas without training up youngsters in the path now, would it??


This report is no extreme example of propagandizing or slant any more than it can be construed as objective observer-and-report journalism-I don;t know why everyone makes such a big fuss about how wonderful Al Jazeera is, breath-of-fresh-air, blah-blah-blah (folks have in the past, anyhow), it's owned by the Al Thani family's (of Qatar, an "absolute and hereditary emirate) 7th richest member.

It's a private mouthpiece for someone's unilateral masturbatory romp, and they hire some real cute anchors!

First off, *quality video!

As for the quoted matter, yeah, it's a standard that I took a part in imposing in the early days of the sift - so I'll speak to it, as the cross-cultural analysis is interesting, but a non-starter.

You simply can't go by the "coolest non-chalant culture/workplace" standard. If you work in a place like that, you'll watch videosift all day and no one cares because it's one of 14 windows you have on your 3 monitors.

Others either are in a) in a more uptight workplace where they can at least sift or b) have to think of the children - won't someone PLEASE think of the children?

You may be cool with dropping English or Danish f-bombs around your kids, but not everyone is, hence the liberal (or, if you will, conservative) use of nsfw tag.

If you're not fussed by anything, then you'll ignore the nsfw tag even if it's on. Or does that little scarlet stub stir something deeply disconcerting in your conscience?

It is a culture that doesn't make a huge fuss about nudity compared to the US.

Skyfall was soooo boring, I could not understand what the fuss was about.
Also, Quantum of Solace is really underrated. Sure the name is ridiculous and the plot was incoherent, but at least it felt like it had a purpose and felt like a Bond film (and had some great action scenes). Skyfall didn't feel like a Bond film at all, no matter how many nods to the old days they jammed in it.

I don't understand the fuss about horse meat. The pig dna that they also found would worry me more.

@Yogi Way to miss the point. I wasn't comparing cars and guns, I was comparing laws regulating cars and guns. That's all I'm going to say to you. You've already told me in another discussion that you're going to refuse any evidence that doesn't agree with your narrow minded beliefs, so having a discussion with you is pointless.

@RedSky

1) I'm not implying that the US is more violent. I already pointed out that the US has lower violent crime rates than the US and UK despite the higher murder rate.


2) I'd say people in rural areas are most likely own guns for hunting and also self defense as there are no police patrols out in the country.

I also wouldn't blame the availability of guns to criminals on gun enthusiasts. Criminals generally don't legally buy their guns. One way to cut down on illegall gun sales is to charge the sellers as accomplices to the crimes committed with the weapons they sell illegally.


3) Maybe punishment was not the right word I should have chosen. My point is that to cut down on driving fatalities, the laws enacted didn't put any inconveniences on responsible drivers.

Your back of the envelope calculation isn't quite so clear cut. Sam Harris discusses this in his article.

It is also worth noting that relatively gun-free countries are not as peaceful as many think. Here are some recent crime data comparing the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and Sweden. Although the U.S. has a higher rate of homicide, the problem of assaults in these other countries is much worse...

So, while the U.S. has many more murders, the U.K., Australia, and Sweden have much higher levels of assault. One might think that having a few more murders per 100,000 persons each year is still much worse than having many hundreds more assaults. Perhaps it is. (One could also argue, as several readers have, that differences in proportion are all we should care about.) But there should be no doubt that the term “assault” often conceals some extraordinary instances of physical and psychological suffering.

It's possible that the reason the US has lower assault, robbery and rape is that armed citizens are able to defend themselves from such crimes.

I'm seeing a lot of people saying the US should look to the UK and Australia on how to handle gun control. Both UK and Australia already had low murder and violent crime rates at the time of their "bans." After Australia's National Firearms Act and forced gun buyback, homicide fell by 9%, but assault went up 40% and rape went up 20%. In the years before the NFA, homicides had been on a steady decline, and a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found the NFA's impact on homicide was "relatively small."

After the UK's "gun ban" in 1997, gun crime actually increased [1] [2]. Gun crimes in 1997-1998 were 2,648. The Office for National Statistics shows that 5,507 firearm offenses were reported 2011-2012.


4) Yes cars do provide a benefit to society. Their regulation and restrictions are reasonable, and I already said I'm not opposed to any reasonable gun laws. But cars are the leading cause of accidental death each year. There are lots of things that can be done to make cars and drivers safer. Cars could be limited to 70 MPH. The national speed limit on highways is 70 MPH, why do you need a car capable of going faster? Cars can be fitted with a GPS and a "black box" that records your driving activities. Each year when you renew your inspection, the black box data is downloaded and analyzed. If it's discovered you've broken any traffic laws, you will be fined, and if it's determined you aren't a safe driver, your license is revoked. Prohibit personal sales of vehicles between individuals, because you can't know if the person your selling to is a safe driver or if their license is valid (see below about the "gun show exemption"). Sounds crazy, but those aren't nearly as bad as some of the things being proposed for new gun laws.

I doubt any of those would be acceptable to the majority of drivers, but it would make driving safer and save lives.

As for your suggestions "not yet tried."

- We already have rigorous background checks for purchasing firearms. They're done by the FBI's NICS, I don't know how it can be more rigorous.
- There is no "gun show exemption" or "loophole," that is more media buzzword BS. Private sale and transfer of anything (not just firearms) can not regulated by congress. It's another constitutional issue dealing with the regulation of commerce. It is still illegal for a person to sell a firearm to someone that they have reason to believe may not be legally able to own one. This is another issue that I'm not opposed to fixing though. It could be as simple as requiring the transaction to be witnessed by a licensed gun dealer and perform a background check.
- Assault weapons are already restricted. Real assault weapons that is, not what the media and lawmakers keep calling assault weapons. Once again I ask, why such fuss over the weapon type least used in crime? These "assault weapons" are expensive to acquire, and most criminals go for cheap, small caliber, concealable pistols and revolvers. [source] For more on what an assault weapon is and their use in crime, just head on over to this Wikipedia page.
- Restricting ammunition would be something that would effect responsible gun owners and likely have little effect on crime. Responsible gun owners are the ones that buy more ammo, go to gun ranges and practice.


5) You mean the steadily high murder rate that has been steadily declining for over two decades, by 50% since 1992? [source]

Woah, hey now. It wasn't Richard Dawkins in the elevator; that was someone completely unrelated. Richard just posted a comment in his forum that essentially said she was being a baby about it and there were more important issues to make a fuss about.

@drattus: "But in a nutshell... many months back at a conference a woman in an elevator was made uncomfortable by a man, man turned out to be Richard Dawkins. People took sides and much drama ensued."