I hope they get killed. The music they were listening to really asks for divine retribution.

I think it's worth shedding light on the unbelievable practices permitted in other countries, yeah. Informing of the terrible things that happen in other parts of the world serves not only to teach but to illustrate why maybe you should appreciate the simple protections (or at least lawful retribution) provided in your own country. (Unless of course you live in the country on display.)

Without the textual follow-up, it'd just be violence porn and I wouldn't have posted it, but after I read the details surrounding the video, I thought it was definitely worth sharing.

Actually.. She looks like she's finding it very relaxing to me.

Especially from the lack of blood spatters everywhere from the divine retribution kitties who don't like baths usually give.

>> ^budzos:
QuantumMushroom has either got to be a troll or a sock puppet. Nobody can be that fucking dense.


It takes all kinds. Sometimes it's good to step back and see the other side. Communist atheists have killed a lot of people (though not as much as religion I think)and this nation (the anglo one that placed themselves here) was almost entirely Christian, so in a way, you could almost say it was founded as a Christian nation. It's just that they decided to keep church and state separate(thankfully). It could even be argued however that most of them only said they were Christian to avoid retribution. It could also be argued that most of the atheist communists were also trying to avoid retribution. Unfortunately, we'll never truly know about every single one of them will we?

Let QM get on your nerves. That's good. Consider it as him helping you with your continuing education. It's good to know what you're talking about and although it can be infuriating, at least it helps you take into consideration what you truly believe. I think he really believes what he's saying. (for the most part anyway)

At least it's not like all of us Sifters are going to start killing each other or anything.

>> ^arsenault185:
^ I can't disagree more on that one. If you are going to downvote, there is no reason to fear retribution. Just down vote, leave a small comment as to why, if you feel like it, and move on. No one needs to get but hurt because there was a down vote. (unless they are abusing it). Ok, Now I am asking nicely, lets not discuss the downvote issue anymore in this thread. thats not why this thread is here.


Just to respond to what you said, it IS probably the reason many people don't downvote though. Especially right now when it's perceived as a kind of wrong doing, even though in actual fact it is not. I mean I'm sure some people do have the mindset that they'll be looked down upon/have their own videos downvoted.

^ I can't disagree more on that one. If you are going to downvote, there is no reason to fear retribution. Just down vote, leave a small comment as to why, if you feel like it, and move on. No one needs to get but hurt because there was a down vote. (unless they are abusing it). Ok, Now I am asking nicely, lets not discuss the downvote issue anymore in this thread. thats not why this thread is here.

How about * wtf and * terrible? And in retribution for those two and a half minutes of my life, downvote.

I think I use my downvote powers more liberally than others. Check my down voted videos out, you'll see they are mostly crap, and / or I have a good reason to do what I did. So far I haven't got any shit from the down voting, so I think thats proof that no one fear retribution. Well, except from one user, but that was squashed long ago.

[edit] well, I just looked at my downvote list and there is something fishy going on. Theres videos in there that i know I didn't downvote.

Gundam, you make some good points. There is a possibility that both women committed suicide.

However, I cannot blame anyone for having conspiracy on the brain these days, because the biggest conspiracy of our time - the deliberate LIES told to the world to justify a war in Iraq - turned out to be TRUE. Also, the outing of covert agent Valerie Plame as retribution against her husband Joe Wilson turned out to be TRUE. So even though I don't believe in 9/11 conspiracies, I certainly don't fault anyone else for believing them, nor would I fault anyone for believing a conspiracy in these suicide cases. Let's not forget how Republican operatives tried to peddle the Vince Foster suicide as a murder, even though separate investigations clearly indicated that it was a suicide. Therefore the pundits and the media in general will probably try to say that Ms. Palfrey's suicide is nothing more than Vince Foster's was, regardless of any differences in the cases. I'm afraid that unless we catch someone, with evidence, AND with a confession, we will never know for certain what happened one way or another.

The huge fucking elephant in the room is that the Iraq War was based on lies, 4000+ Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, and yet all the perpetrators of this crime against humanity are free. How sad and disturbing is that?

>> ^twiddles:

Amendment VIII
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
pun·ish·ment
1: the act of punishing
2 a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
   b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment

Nowhere does it define punishment as being post conviction. Indeed the amendment as a single sentence mentions bail which is certainly not restricted to post conviction. The logical conclusion based on the possible definitions of punishment - even if you were to read the constitution and its amendments literally - is that cruel or unusual punishment (severe treatment) at any time is prohibited. How do you get to punishment as being only something that happens upon conviction? Any case law to back that up? Is it okay if I hit you repeatedly with an iron bar as long as I am "interogatting" you? That flies in the face of logic. If you stretch it enough you can say it is okay if you kill the suspect as long as you were interrogating them.
I agree with NetRunner, Scalia isn't doing his job correctly and he is being a smug prick about it.


rickegee already pointed out the case law.

The dictionary definitions are moot because legal definitions differ from common dictionary definitions. Here is the legal definition of cruel and unusual punisment. Note that it specifies convicted criminal defendants:

"cruel and unusual punishment n. governmental penalties against convicted criminal defendants which are barbaric, involve torture and/or shock the public morality. They are specifically prohibited under the Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. However, nowhere are they specifically defined. Tortures like the rack (stretching the body inch by inch) or the thumbscrew, dismemberment, breaking bones, maiming, actions involving deep or long-lasting pain are all banned. But solitary confinement, enforced silence, necessary force to prevent injury to fellow prisoners or guards, psychological humiliation, and bad food are generally allowed. In short, there is a large gray area, in which "cruel and unusual" is definitely subjective based on individual sensitivities and moral outlook. The U. S. Supreme Court waffled on the death penalty, declaring that some forms of the penalty were cruel and prohibited under the Furman case (1972), which halted executions for several years, but later relaxed the prohibition. The question remains if the gas chamber, hanging, or electrocution are cruel and unusual. Cruel, certainly, but hanging was not unusual at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. (See: capital punishment)"

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.

No one is saying it's okay to beat (American) prisoners or the like. The argument is that other constitutional rights and other laws are being violated in those cases: not the 8th Amendment.

Amendment VIII

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

pun·ish·ment
1: the act of punishing
2 a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
   b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment

Nowhere does it define punishment as being post conviction. Indeed the amendment as a single sentence mentions bail which is certainly not restricted to post conviction. The logical conclusion based on the possible definitions of punishment - even if you were to read the constitution and its amendments literally - is that cruel or unusual punishment (severe treatment) at any time is prohibited. How do you get to punishment as being only something that happens upon conviction? Any case law to back that up? Is it okay if I hit you repeatedly with an iron bar as long as I am "interogatting" you? That flies in the face of logic. If you stretch it enough you can say it is okay if you kill the suspect as long as you were interrogating them.

I agree with NetRunner, Scalia isn't doing his job correctly and he is being a smug prick about it.

>> ^dag:
Also, I didn't know that the original title referred to Choggie directly. I would say in that case it's fair game for some kind of retribution as you are making someone the butt of a joke.

True. Though, I'm not sure if discarding the video is an equitable retribution, IMO. Still, I'll be the first to admit I'm a ball buster, and I'm man enough to sleep in the bed I make. My friends call me harasshole; a moniker I'm quite fond of. One even called me the asshole with a heart of gold. Awww. Now, that's just sweet.

That aside, I feel I need to somewhat justify my actions because from an outsider's perspective it may seem like I was just randomly attacking choggie with posting this video. Instead it has everything to do with me answering a PM from the chogster where he said I "represent[ed] the new and improved, best of the worst wih most of [my] contributions, and a general dumbing-down of the place in general." There were several PMs to be honest, and I have no idea where his frustration against me came from, but in any event... I just wanted to show him he was right, so I posted this video. It got sifted to the front page, didn't it? Yahtzee!

I said my peace. Done. I don't care about choggie. I'm going to take that Valium now.

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

I just want to leave another comment so we can hopefully soon boast that we have a 3 second cat fart video with 100 comments.

Also, I didn't know that the original title referred to Choggie directly. I would say in that case it's fair game for some kind of retribution as you are making someone the butt of a joke.

There's a lot of that around here, and it's OK as long as both parties are cool with it - obviously not the case here.

*ban. Since choggie is going after K0MMIE I'm free to ban without fear of retribution.

^Word, JAPR.

Since you've adopted a slightly less abrasive tone, joedirt (hey, it may not be much, but I'll take it), I'll tell you where I agree with you, but first I'll address the mkone situtation.

Mkone downvotes all American football apparently because he hates American football. I find his behavior juvenile, but not in conflict with the rules. It would be no different then someone downvoting every video by Avril Lavigne simple because they hate every word sung by Avril Lavigne. Back when Ron Paul constantly cluttered the Top 15 I didn't downvote the videos, though I was sorely tempted to because I don't like Ron Paul. I knew I couldn't be an objective judge of their quality, so I simply passed on even viewing them. However, had I downvoted them I would not have been breaking the rules. I could justify all my downvotes by simply saying "I don't believe in what Ron Paul stands for, so regardless of what this video presents I can't approve of his advertisments or speeches." Who could have called me out for that? I wish mkone would simply avoid all American football videos, but it's really not my place to say. So be it. So if we're the jury on mkone then I cast my vote to acquit.

I mostly agree with you, joedirt, in that these behavior call out threads need to be drastically reduced. I won't ask for their complete elimination, because there will be times that someone's behavior will definitely cross the line, so we should still reserve the right as a community to address these issues in a public forum. You might not like that and may call these things "witch hunts", but I still prefer an open, public forum over a star chamber that dispenses "justice" behind closed doors. From what I gather you don't like either, but I can't determine what else we could have done in the quantumushroom situation. He downvoted videos in rapid succession solely as retribution. As you said: "[T]his site at the very core and essence consists of watching videos and voting for videos." If we all did what QM did then it would no longer be about watching and voting for videos, but one pissing contest after another. His behavior, if duplicated by enough users, would have ruined this site. Therefore it had to be addressed. So even if we had removed QM's ability to downvote, i.e., taking away his downvote "tool", I'd still prefer that it be done publicly, that way transparency is maintained. Now maybe you're suggesting that ALL downvoting be removed. To that I can only say that we shouldn't punish the vast majority for the sins of the tiny minority.

To summarize, there should be far fewer posts like this, but I can't in good conscience ask for their complete elimination. Granted, it's an imperfect system, and maybe someone will come up with something better eventually. I'm open to change, so I'd love to hear some suggestions. In the mean time I hope there will be less posts like this.

PS:

Did it kill you NOT to be quite as rude?