>> ^NetRunner:
"There goes Altair, being chased yet again by Italy's finest."
Ahem, Altair was in Jerusalem, Damascus, and Acre. Ezio was in Italy.
True, but some of the guards he was fighting in Jerusalem, Damascus, and Acre were Crusaders. In addition to German, French, and English soldiers, this included some Italians. HA!

"There goes Altair, being chased yet again by Italy's finest."

Ahem, Altair was in Jerusalem, Damascus, and Acre. Ezio was in Italy.

Also, the mechanics they're making fun of here? In the Italy-based games, guards would recognize you when you sat on benches, and jab their spears into hay-bales.

Though Ezio still survives 1000 foot falls when he just lands in hay, or piles of leaves, or oddly enough, flowery bushes...

Though they've also said that assassins are actually imbued with special abilities they inherited via a little human/SPOILER interbreeding.

A site named "dorkly" should know these things!

God dammit.. there goes another tooth...

Almost getting violent is not illegal.

Your link and your examples support my point completely. There are limits to free speech: when they cause harm to others. Libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, or my examples of inciting violence or causing discrimination, all cause harm.

Being an asshole on the subway does not cause harm.

She never threatened anyone (so there goes any "uttering threats" charge) and harassment is almost by definition a repetitive act (which means this likely can't be called that either, legally).

With regards to freedom of speech not superseding other rights, here is a link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Please point out which one her freedom of speech was superseding. There is no "everyone has the right to never be offended and to be sheltered from the opinions of others."
>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^Skeeve:
While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.

This line of thinking always puzzles me. Freedom of speech always has (and always should have) limitations. It doesn't supersede other rights--it exists in relation to them and is not any more "special," which is why (for example) there are laws against libel and slander, laws against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater in order to start a panic, etc.
The lady in this video is clearly going beyond just voicing her opinion and harassing the other passengers. At one point she seems ready to get physical (at about the 1:00 part she's screaming that she dares someone to try to remove her from the train). She's entitled to her opinion about immigrants and she's also entitled to express her opinion, but she's not entitled to repeatedly verbally attack or threaten the people around her, who have no chance to avoid or get away from her since they're all trapped on the tram together. In other words, her right to free speech does not supersede the other passengers' rights to travel on the tram in peace.
I'm glad she was arrested and, as mentioned above by @Boise_Lib, that no violence was involved. She should be prosecuted not for expressing an offensive opinion but for repeatedly and intentionally harassing the other passengers. This is not the kind of behavior that should be rewarded with a "Oh, it's her right to free speech" pass.

Doubt my organs will be any use to any one so there goes that. I dont like the idea of embalming so I dont want to be buried with a bunch of chemicals and mouth and eyes sewn shut. I've always wanted to be cremated with my ashes poured into the river Liffey so that I may be made into Guiness plus I want to be in Ireland.

>> ^Hastur:

>> ^Asmo:
I don't decide, the abstainer decides... Whether it's apathy (my vote doesn't make a difference), indifference (don't care either way) or a genuine protest about a paucity of good candidates, the abstainer chooses (democratically) not to participate. They lose the right to complain (although most will still do so) about who they wind up with, but it's not like they were disqualified against their wishes...
Here's our disagreement in a nutshell:
You claim the most pure form of democracy represents the majority of voters. I claim the most pure form of democracy represents the majority of people. If your aim is a more pure democracy, which is more desirable?
And your last paragraph simply isn't supported. In a direct election, a candidate must appeal to exactly 50.1% of the electorate, and there is no compulsion to distribute that appeal either demographically or geographically. The college at least forces the candidates to broaden their reach. Look at some of the swing states fought over in the past election: Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Missouri, Nevada. There's a lot of diversity represented there, both geographically and demographically. IMO that's the way it should be in a union of states.


Incorrect, I agree with the assertion that the purest form of democracy represents the majority of the people. But how do you resolve an election where the majority refuses to vote? Either you poll again and again and again, or make the vote compulsory (there goes freedom), or just don't have a head of state.

But your point re: majority of the people undermines EC voting as much as it does direct elections. A state doesn't lose EC votes because people abstain, each state get's it's full quota no matter how many people stay at home.

And how does your statement not support my assertion in the second paragraph? Appealing to swing states with an uneven balance of EC votes is not diversifying, it's focusing their efforts (as demonstrated in the video). Candidates wouldn't waste time on safe seats typically. They certainly wouldn't waste time on safe seats (or alternately seats that are locked down by the opposition) that are severely underrepresented in the EC. The college forces candidates to narrow their focus, not broaden it, in the demographic that actually counts. EC votes to be gained. Demographic and geographic broadening is accidental. If those states were all jammed together in one corner of the country and had similar demographics, would you complain that candidates were narrowing their focus, or just admit they are chasing states that will yield the greatest electoral advantage to them?

The "way it should be" in a union of states is that all men (and women) are equal, not that some states get special attention because of a flawed system set up by people who didn't trust the every day person to make the 'right' choice.

edit: rephrased a sentence for clarity.

And there goes democracy.>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^A10anis:
If 99 out of 100 concur, are they collectively right or collectively wrong?

Neither. A majority doesn't prove or disprove the quality of a position on any particular argument.

There goes @Crosswords talking again!

A deer?, shit, there goes my Rocky and Bullwinkle joke.
And I might have to dig up a copy of the movie Brainstorm, that looks almost bad enough to watch.

There goes the neighborhood.

Says the bear.

"...Well, there goes another one.. Why is it when we show the home movies the neighbors always bolt out of our house screaming?".
-Luc Besson

There goes my sleep...

It was only a matter of time before tattoos went digital!
Not sure if this is a good thing though - there goes originality!

So the microwave vaporizes the water so fast that you don't need baking powder?

There goes the theory that baking + microwave = fail

welp, there goes any chance of some other video being number 1 for a little while.