See, I agreed with everything you said up until that last statement (that I quoted below).

All organized religions brutally and mindlessly suppress individual freedom. But lately the target de jour seems to be Islam. People like Sam Harris got off track when they forgot that the real target is the dismantling of all organized religion and focused almost exclusively on denouncing Islam--usually with obnoxious overgeneralizations and a complete lack of understanding how diverse Islam actually is.

And that's the major problem with the whole argument Dawkins and Maher are proposing (i.e. that you can't criticize Islam anymore). You can't criticise Christianity or Judaism or any other major religion without hugely overgeneralizing, either. Instead you need to target specific denominations within specific communities and how they practice the religion.

For example, are you upset about how "Christianity" has helped spread AIDS or protected pedophiles? Well then really you're really looking to criticize the Catholic church and it's stance on contraception and handling illegal activities within the church, not Christianity as a whole.

Upset with how gay people are viewed? Again, you're probably not looking to criticize the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and many other Christian denominations who have reformed in recent times to be accepting of LGBT members and clergy. It's not a Christianity problem so much as it is a problem of how specific people in specific places for specific cultural reasons interpret the texts of their religion.

Basically, I don't think it is a problem if people want to criticize how Islam is practiced in a specific context (say, for example, the use of female genital mutilation in some subsets of Islam in Africa). But I do think it is a problem when the speaker is simply set on demonizing the religion as whole rather than making a rational argument, for example overgeneralizing female gential mutilation (which actually pre-dates Islam and was incorporated into it later after Islam's rise of influence in the region) as an example of why Islam is evil.

Certainly people have the legal right to make such an argument (in the U.S. at least). However, I'm guessing most universities don't want to come across as looking in support of such ill-structured arguments that are more akin to tabloid magazine hit pieces than an actual intellectual argument which is grounded in facts and reason.

All that said, I have no inside information about the real administrative reasons why certain speakers have been declined/uninvited at specific college campuses.

All weapons can be used for assaulting another person. Do you mean semi-automatic rifles similar to AR15s? If so, the NZ example shows you don't need that. They are not the problem.

Many sports require high capacity magazines. In fact the overwhelming amount of bullets fired from firearms everyday is for sport. Why restrict these sports for security theatre? I write security theatre because a magazine change takes less than a second and you're shooting again. It's not going to change the outcome of an active (criminal) shooter who simply pockets multiple magazines. Plus once again the successful story of NZ who passed sensible laws - and didn't restrict semi-automatic rifles or high capacity magazines, yet have crime statistics that are enviable even from an Australian perspective.

I have my doubts as to whether any new laws would change anything in the USA. I don't actually think it's a good solution for them. And constitutionally speaking, more laws are never a good solution (since they restrict liberty).

I think the USA needs a long term societal change, involving fixing many aspects of their society to gradually make things better.

The problem I have is his statements about the sides of the gun debate. The pro-gun-control people aren't arguing against all guns. I'm sure a few are, but most are looking for some reasonable controls put on. Closing the gun show loophole, limiting access to assault weapons, limiting magazine size (if you are in a situation where 9 or 12 rounds of .40 caliber isn't going to stop the situation before you can reload a new magazine, then you are a situation well beyond what can be handled anyhow) and tracking data on weapon crimes. All we know right now is that there are 50 or so suicides a day with guns, 30 or so homicides per day (not counting mass shootings) with guns, over 1,000 hospitalizations due to guns (most are accidental, many of those are children), an unknown number of thousands of crimes (robberies, rapes, etc) at gunpoint, and while general statistics like that inform to some extent, we really need more detailed information on those uses to make more informed choices in gun laws... which is basically what he's arguing for, though he doesn't point out that it isn't allowed under present US law as @oritteropo pointed out above.

Is that a question or a statement (it's worded as a statement, but has a question mark at the end)?

Yes I already knew that. And...? It's no different than Australia in that particular respect. It's an aspect that I would fully expect Americans to rightfully not adopt.

Adding to above NZ allows semi-auto longarms and high capacity magazines for all firearms (basically what Australia has banned from owning), not all firearms need to be registered (unlike Australia), and they have longer licensing periods and yet they have a significantly lower firearms homicide rate and homicide rate overall. America using the NZ model as a template would be a better starting point. I wrote "template" in my previous post, perhaps "model" or "rough guide" would have been better. I don't mean copy it verbatim. I mean use it as a starting point as at least potentially workable.

Are you a citizen of NZ or Aus and are you a firearms owner in NZ or Aus?

He talks so much sense my head hurts.

In my home country (Australia) we have some pretty good statistics on firearms (and knives, and just about everything actually). Yet they are routinely ignored in favour of the simple solution - to blindly further restrict law abiding citizen's access to firearms. It makes the government look as though they are tackling firearm crime (which in Australia is almost never committed by a licensed firearm owner) even though it has no appreciable effect on firearm crime.

This is happening again right now. After the Lindt place siege last year they held a lot of enquiries. The one on firearms concluded that no further restrictions needed to be made (the gunman had an illegal firearm as those who commit firearm crime almost always do, in this case a pump action shotgun) and that licensing and registration should be made easier. The first thing the government did? Put an import ban on perfectly legal lever action shotguns with magazine capacities of more than 5 rounds, calling them a "dangerous new technology". Firearms owners are expecting (from a historical trend) further restrictions at the National Firearms Agreement review next year.

Once a right is given away it rarely comes back, no matter how badly you want it. So I hope America chooses its path carefully. If I moved there I'd want the right to own firearms and to use them to defend myself (the first of which in Australia has nonsense restrictions, and the second of which is almost totally illegal . Word has it that self defence in the home by firearms will shortly be made totally illegal and if your firearms are stolen you may be charged with crimes committed by those firearms).

If you want to look at what the data says you also have to extend it everywhere (my preferred scenario). And in regards to others aspects of people's lives, I think people won't like the numbers and so will simply ignore the numbers.

Or you get people in America saying "hey look Australia solved its firearms problems by restricting them" - using it as a quasi-statistic. Except:
1. We never had a big firearms problem to start with.
2. We had a linearly diminishing rate of firearms deaths starting well before the restrictions that didn't change with the restrictions.
3. The majority of studies looking at the topic say the restrictions didn't work.

Australia is very similar to New Zealand in every way (and really are hardly like the US), and NZ allow access to all almost all the firearms we banned and yet they have a lower homicide rate by firearm, and a lower homicide rate overall. Basically if America wants a model that arguably works as a template, look at NZ. But probably more important than that, I'd be fixing America's health system, mental health system, and poverty rates first. I bet an analysis will show many incredible flow on effects in American society as a result of doing that.

US gun deaths since 1968: 1.5 million
Deaths in *all* US wars: 1.4 million
Congratulations, the NRA is officially a bigger enemy of the US than the NAZIs.
This has nothing to do with 'rights' or 'self protection'. This is all about gun manufacturer profits.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/

"In the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. began advancing the argument that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to carry a gun, rather than the people’s right to form armed militias to provide for the common defense."

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/23/battleground-america

This is true. There are tons of recipes out there that are healthy, well varied, and still taste fantastic. I tend to use Cooking Light's website as a reference for healthy recipes when looking for inspiration, and you'll be surprised at what you can come up with. (In one publication of their magazine, they extolled the virtues of butter, and yet every single related recipe was perfectly healthy.)

In general, healthy living should be a combination of both healthy eating and good exercise.

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

This reminds me of Justine Sacco, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?_r=0

And maybe even Cecil's murderer. :-o

Approaching 5 million hits on YouTube. *quality



More from an interview of Ladybeard by Forbes:

Forbes: How old are you?

Ladybeard: I’m five years old. I’m a five-year-old Japanese girl mysteriously from Australia with the appearance of an older Australian man. But Ladybeard is a five-year-old.

Forbes: How the idea of Ladybaby come about?

Ladybeard: The sponsoring company, Clearstone, is a costume maker in Japan. I had been on the cover of Metropolis, which is Japan’s biggest English-language street magazine. The CEO of Clearstone was getting off a plane at the airport and saw me on the cover, flexing in a bikini. He doesn’t speak English so he can’t read the article, but he shows the magazine to his staff, and I just happen to know some people on his staff. So they told him who I was, and he said, “Get him in for a meeting!”
So we go for this meeting, we have no idea what it’s about, and he says, “I really want to do this thing with you. I’ve got these two girls, and I want to put you in a [music] group with them. It’ll be like Babymetal except you’ll be in it. And it’ll be awesome!” That’s how Ladybaby happened.

There is a scheme in the UK for anyone to become self employed by becoming authorized sellers of The Big Issue; a topical magazine about social and political issues.

Vendors pay for the magazines and sell them; taking half of the revenue.

The company pays some of their profits to a charity subdivision that helps the homeless and those in poverty.

http://www.bigissue.com/

Here is the basic situation. If you find her funny because she discusses women's issues in a way you find to be humorous, more power to you.

I personally don't think she is funny. In fact, I would go so far as to say that unless she is performing material that someone else wrote, she is extremely terrible at comedy.

Is it because I am a guy? Maybe. I mean I understood what she was doing. She was basically trying to use sarcastic humor to take pot shots at the magazine because they enforce a lot of stereotypes to their readers. I just think that she went about it in a lowest common denominator sort of way. It was crude and clumsy from my viewpoint.

But in the end, it really doesn't matter. You either find her funny or you don't. I can't throw stones at you if you think she is funny. I like Stephen Wright and Mitch Hedberg while a lot of people think they are terrible. Comedy is something personal to everyone, and you like who you like.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one

Interesting article about the Cascadia subduction zone.

How so? (the "men threatened by her" comment)

She's joking about fashion magazines which are mostly run by women, filled with content aimed at women, designed to make women feel like shit unless they conform to the 'style' or 'trend' or 'ideal weight - 20%'.

She makes the joke that she can catch a dick whenever she wants, I don't think it's men that have the problem...

And no, I do not find her funny either, but more power to her for getting out there. She seems well and truly aware that she doesn't need my (or any other man's) approval to do what she does. I don't think she needs the Videosift white knight brigade running to her rescue either... (talk about patriarchal)

The BBC's Robert Peston has written an article that echoes your confusion (and mine). I don't always agree with what he says, but there's not much to argue in that article.

I think Galbraith is right on the money, the only choices for Greece are capitulation or exit.

I leave you with this - http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33346743 - the BBC Magazine advises Greece to follow the teachings of Zeno of Citium, the Stoic. I showed that article to my younger son actually, who's a bit prone to dwelling on past failures and would do well to follow the Stoic principle of only worrying about things that you can change and not those you can't.