>> ^MaxWilder:

I'm a little bit shocked a the misogyny going on here. She's got every right to complain. If there was a glass ceiling above the urinals, you better bet I'd complain.
Stop being assholes.


how is that Evan comparable ? there is a difference having something specifically designed to watch people piss than having something that accidentally would allow sum one to briefly see up sum-ones skirt if they really put effort into it.

And really by now toilets should be mixed i don,t see why its acceptable to have a bloke look at u dick and piss next to you but no have a woman do the same.

The juge makes out that all men are specifcaly going to go there to perv on women , and that it was designed by men for that the juge in manny ways is the sexist in this situation , making out that men r all perverts ( although granted she was making a piont about types of people in court and im sure the editing could have changed how the judje cam across , non the less she still hinting at men been perverts by defult)

In scotland men ware skirts with no underwear if i was waring a skirt and sumone looked at my penis i wouldn't have an issue with it its just a penis people need to grow the fuck up.

The fact the judge apreaches this with anger rather than a pragmatic humors / or emotional neutral approach shows she is a retard and probably not suitable as a judge.

This is a huge to do about nothing. There's stairs like that all over the world. the difference here is that they lead right to the courtroom of a clearly assertive and stern, female, judge.

I'm offended when she assumes that men specifically designed it just to look up women's skirts. Perhaps, but fat chance. It's just more American paranoia about sex and litigation.

Big deal. Down vote.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I know you are feeling hurt and wronged and that justice has not been served - and I'm not saying BB2 is without blame - but now you are entering harassment territory.

Last time, I spent a little effort crafting a diplomatic warning that asked you nicely to desist and stop contacting this user. I don't have the energy to keep playing kindergarden cop for this incident.

You are trying to post abuse to this user but skirt the boundaries of our guidelines. I'll repeat what I put in the warning - I'm not a 'bot looking for keywords. If I were a bot - I wouldn't be feeling frustration and anger at the way one user can treat another in comments.

Chicchorea, I'm sure you're a nice person in the flesh, and I appreciate all of the good things you have contributed to the Sift, but I'm suspending your account indefinitely for harassment and not heeding the first warning.

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Finally, something you say that means anything.

. to you too!

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
http://videosift.com/poll/Would-it-be-helpful-to-have-a-notadupe-invocation

I'd read that some bitcoin proponents were concerned that the drug trade would hurt bitcoin's reputation as a serious anonymous currency.

Thoughts?>> ^blankfist:

http://gawker.com/5805928/the-underground-website-where
-you-can-buy-any-drug-imaginable
The Underground Website Where You Can Buy Any Drug Imaginable
"Mark, a software developer, had ordered the 100 micrograms of acid through a listing on the online marketplace Silk Road. He found a seller with lots of good feedback who seemed to know what they were talking about, added the acid to his digital shopping cart and hit "check out." He entered his address and paid the seller 50 Bitcoins—untraceable digital currency—worth around $150. Four days later the drugs, sent from Canada, arrived at his house."

http://gawker.com/5805928/the-underground-website-where-you-can-buy-any-drug-imaginable

The Underground Website Where You Can Buy Any Drug Imaginable

"Mark, a software developer, had ordered the 100 micrograms of acid through a listing on the online marketplace Silk Road. He found a seller with lots of good feedback who seemed to know what they were talking about, added the acid to his digital shopping cart and hit "check out." He entered his address and paid the seller 50 Bitcoins—untraceable digital currency—worth around $150. Four days later the drugs, sent from Canada, arrived at his house."

I think your confusing me with someone else. I had no intention of you commenting, or even seeing this video. Also: skirt the question much (about Craig's argument)?

>> ^shinyblurry:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://religion.videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp This "child" is acting as a mouthpiece for militant atheism..I love her story.. "i go to camp every summer with hiking and ponies..but I have to read the bible (HUFF, FROWN)..yeah like we had to read about Jesus or whatever (twirls hair)..then I was like..what about the OT??!?!? Then I read "some" of it..lol..give me a break..then she rips out the most contentious passages in scripture and goes on a little mocking rant about how great science is. It's so utterly contrived that I'm surprised even you are dense enough to buy it.
I negated this drivel, even though you dragged me in for an ambush, just to mock and smear me, and make me have to refute a faked testimony from a 14 year old malcontent. That's all you're getting out of me. And you call me a troll.

>> ^L0cky:

He did really skirt around the happy pill issue though.(...) He answered the question with another question: 'When would you take that pill?'; which ultimately breaks down his entire argument. (....) If I was Harris, I would explicitly state that his proposition is exclusively in regards to making real world decisions; and not about engineering happiness at an individual level.


I don't think he skirted around the issue or broke down his argument. Part of his point, which is also embedded in the title in the book, is that a one-shot ultimate happiness pill isnt possible, or even desirable, which is why he describes a moral landscape, as opposed to a moral scale. I think the comparison with health really nails it: you can be fat an eat unhealthy, for instance, and still be "healthy" in the sense that you dont have terminal cancer or a severe depression etc. The definition of health, in other words, is not really a scale, but a landscape, where you can literally be Lance Armstrong with x number of tour de france medals and going strong and still be what doctors would call "terminally ill"

What is sure, in medicine , however, is that if you do have cancer, for instance, the best way to treat your body would probably not be 5 burgers and 40 cigarettes a day.


The same could be said, as Harris puts it, the best advice to a country with high infant and mother mortality, is not to burn down schools designed to teach small girls to read.


This is clearly not "just" a real world descision anymore than our basic concepts of health at an individual level

>> ^theali:

Nazis had their day in court AFTER they were fully defited, both morally and physically. Al Quida hasn't been defited yet, as an organization and ideology. The courts would have dragged on and opened many cans of worms before an actual victory is achieved.
Give historic example of trial when the war was still going on.
>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, I'm saying that progressives were cheering the skirting of due process. I probably mentioned that at least two or three times in this thread alone, not to mention in other discussions on this site, so I'm not sure why you're confused.
When I bring this up on the Sift, the bloodthirsty progressives swarm in like flies to honey and build the flimsy straw man argument that I'm somehow standing up for Osama. The "who" in this scenario isn't the point; the "what" is. When government can side step a fundamental right one time and it's cheered by the people, it becomes precedent.
If anything, the progressives should've been in front of the White House demanding Obama step down for his kill order. Even the Nazis had their day in court.



So one reason we have a necessary need to forego the right to a fair trial is because the courts would've lingered on and "opened a can of worms"? I guess the suspension of Habeas Corpus in GITMO is also a necessary tool to "defit" Al Qaeda?

And there wasn't a kill order put out on Hitler, as far as I know. And he was recent history's most reviled mass murderer. The point is and always has been that due process is important even for the most hated, because the second we allow the government to side-step a very important human right for popular opinion, we've welcomed that selective tyranny onto any one of us.

Nazis had their day in court AFTER they were fully defited, both morally and physically. Al Quida hasn't been defited yet, as an organization and ideology. The courts would have dragged on and opened many cans of worms before an actual victory is achieved.

Give historic example of trial when the war was still going on.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, I'm saying that progressives were cheering the skirting of due process. I probably mentioned that at least two or three times in this thread alone, not to mention in other discussions on this site, so I'm not sure why you're confused.
When I bring this up on the Sift, the bloodthirsty progressives swarm in like flies to honey and build the flimsy straw man argument that I'm somehow standing up for Osama. The "who" in this scenario isn't the point; the "what" is. When government can side step a fundamental right one time and it's cheered by the people, it becomes precedent.
If anything, the progressives should've been in front of the White House demanding Obama step down for his kill order. Even the Nazis had their day in court.

@NetRunner, I'm saying that progressives were cheering the skirting of due process. I probably mentioned that at least two or three times in this thread alone, not to mention in other discussions on this site, so I'm not sure why you're confused.

When I bring this up on the Sift, the bloodthirsty progressives swarm in like flies to honey and build the flimsy straw man argument that I'm somehow standing up for Osama. The "who" in this scenario isn't the point; the "what" is. When government can side step a fundamental right one time and it's cheered by the people, it becomes precedent.

If anything, the progressives should've been in front of the White House demanding Obama step down for his kill order. Even the Nazis had their day in court.

>> ^blankfist:

I'm going to continue to rub your collective noses in this shit. Because you may believe this has something to do with "who" had their rights encroached upon, but it doesn't. It has to do with who decides when rights can be skirted.


Since you're so in love with telling lies about people you have political disagreements with this argument, why not articulate it fully, at least?

You're saying...what?

That wars are bad? Progressives agree.

That we're not at war? Afraid we are. Congress voted on it and everything.

That progressives are happy about being at war? Have you listened to anything we've ever said in the last ten fucking years?

Are you saying that morally or legally we had no right to declare war on Al Qaeda after 9/11?

Are you saying hat even if we're at war, we shouldn't fire a shot at anyone, because they deserve a trial first?

Also, why is the killing of OBL the focal point for these concerns? Why not someone less culpable that US forces have killed?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You are really dodging the Friedman issue. Why is it that you would bemoan the loss of Osama bin Laden, yet you have no problem "lolling" off the Friedman/Pinochet genocide of tens of thousands of human beings? There was nothing voluntary about those deaths. Nice utopia.


Dodging? No, it was just a clumsy segue, and quite frankly a lazy attempt at misdirection. If you want to talk Friedman, then we can do that, but let's not jump into that headlong when we're already talking about those of you who applauded the usurping of a man's basic rights.

It has nothing to do with Osama personally. I don't care that he's dead, and his capture had little affect on my life (as I knew it wouldn't). It also had little or no effect on the economy and the restoration of our liberties (also as I knew it wouldn't). If you think state sanctioned assassinations are a way of bringing people to justice, then by all means please keep bringing up Friedman as a distraction in the hopes I take your bait. But I won't.

I'm going to continue to rub your collective noses in this shit. Because you may believe this has something to do with "who" had their rights encroached upon, but it doesn't. It has to do with who decides when rights can be skirted.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Is it because Osama Bin Laden was rich and the murdered Chilean women and children were poor? Is your double standard about Freidmanite genocide a class issue, or is it just more of your typical everyday partisanship?
>> ^blankfist:
@dystopianfuturetoday, really? That's your analogous response? To compare an economist's role in fixing Chile's hyperinflation to a state sanctioned assassination that set a dangerous precedent of skirting the basic right to due process?
Bloodthirsty progressive needs to rethink his arguments.



lol

This is probably the worst attempt at building an argument you've made on the Sift since I've known you.

Is it because Osama Bin Laden was rich and the murdered Chilean women and children were poor? Is your double standard about Freidmanite genocide a class issue, or is it just more of your typical everyday partisanship?

>> ^blankfist:

@dystopianfuturetoday, really? That's your analogous response? To compare an economist's role in fixing Chile's hyperinflation to a state sanctioned assassination that set a dangerous precedent of skirting the basic right to due process?
Bloodthirsty progressive needs to rethink his arguments.

@dystopianfuturetoday, really? That's your analogous response? To compare an economist's role in fixing Chile's hyperinflation to a state sanctioned assassination that set a dangerous precedent of skirting the basic right to due process?

Bloodthirsty progressive needs to rethink his arguments.