*quality

How does a bastard, orphan, son of a whore
And a Scotsman, dropped in the middle of a forgotten spot
In the Caribbean by Providence, impoverished, in squalor
Grow up to be a hero and a scholar?
The ten-dollar Founding Father without a father
Got a lot farther
By workin' a lot harder
By bein' a lot smarter
By bein' a self-starter
By fourteen they had placed him in charge of the trade and charter
And every day while slaves were being slaughtered
And carted away across the waves
Our Hamilton kept his guard up
Inside he was longing for something to be a part of
The brother was ready to beg steal borrow or barter
Then a hurricane came and
Devastation reigned and
Our man saw his future drip drippin' down the drain
Put a pencil to his temple
Connected it to his brain
And he wrote his first refrain
A testament to his pain
When the word got around, they said, "This kid is insane, man!"
Took up a collection just to send him to the mainland
Getcha education, don't forget from whence you came
And the world is gonna know your name!
What's your name, man?

Alexander Hamilton, his name is Alexander Hamilton
And there's a million things he hasn't done
But just you wait, just you wait

When he was 10, his father split
Full of it, debt-ridden
Two years later, see Alex and his mother, bed-ridden
Half-dead, sittin' in their own sick, the scent thick
And Alex got better but his mother went quick
Moved in with a cousin, the cousin committed suicide
Left him with nothin' but ruined pride
Somethin' new inside
A voice saying Alex, you gotta fend for yourself
He started retreatin' and readin' every treatise on the shelf
There would've been nothin' left to do
For someone less astute
He would've been dead or destitute
Without a cent of restitution
Started workin', clerkin' for his late mother's landlord
Tradin' sugar cane and rum and other things he can't afford
Scannin' for every book he can get his hands on
Plannin' for the future, see him now as he stands on
The bow of a ship headed for a new land
In New York you can be a new man
The ship is in the harbor now
See if you can spot him
Another immigrant comin' up from the bottom
His enemies destroyed his rep, America forgot him
And me? I'm the damn fool that shot him

Alexander Hamilton
We were waiting in the weeds for you
You could never back down
You always had to speak your mind
But Alexander Hamilton, we could never take your deeds from you
In our cowardice and our shame
We will try to destroy your name
The world will never be the same, Alexander!

Yeah, I'm the damn genius that shot him

...although i don't hold it against her for what she did. It's not often you get to speak your mind to power. Sometimes you're so pissed you just say fuck it. Sometimes protesting isn't comfortable or convenient.

@Jinx
here is what you are missing,and i think should be a focal point in this situation in regards to burr:

1.while we may view burr creating a game where sarkesian gets punched in the face offensive,and maybe it is to you (i just find it in poor taste).this is a perfectly acceptable position to take.

what is NOT mentioned in this video is that burr created a very similar,distasteful game,with the exact same mechanics,for the exact same REASON a few years earlier,but in that case the face being punched was jack thompson,who was seeking to legislate by using unsubstantiated claims that video games promoted actual violence,but in THAT case it was a man whose face was being punched.

so where was the moral outrage then?nobody gave two shits.

2.guthrie responded by recruiting her fairly large feminist twitter followers to barrage burr contacts and businesses who he did work for.so it wasn't just guthrie but a group of like-minded women who banded together to,dare i say..harass? a video game developer who offended their tender sensibilities.

could we call this gaggle of offended women a cabal?
meeeeh..i think that maybe stretching the meaning just a tad in that regard,but i think it safe to call them a group of offended women.

did they have a right to band together and expose a person they felt offended by?
yep.they do have that right.

do i think it hypocritical and morally inconsistent to use the victim card,when years earlier burr created a similar game for similar reasons?but in that case it was a MAN getting smashed in the face?
yep..i sure do.

but here is where it REALLY goes off the rails.
you would think the target should be burr right?
after all it was him who created the sarkesian/thompson games.so it would stand to reason that burr would be the focus ..right?

well,you would be wrong my friend.
guthrie went after elliot for having the audacity to disagree politically with guthrie.
he never threatened her.
never used violent language.
in fact he AGREED with a large portion of guthrie's position.
he just felt it counter-productive to make a federal issue out of the situation,and advised a more cautious approach.

thats it.thats all he actually did on twitter.

and guthrie's response was,and i paraphrase "elliot seems to be unaware of our power as women.should i sic the internet on him?"

"sic the internet on him"

think about that for a moment,and let the larger implications come into focus.

so this mans life is ruined.
lost his job.
80k in the hole.
and for what?
HE didnt create the offensive game,so in what context can this be viewed as justice?equality?fairness?

no.
this is a lynch mob.
this is mob rules.
this is about privilege playing the victim in a victimless crime,and utilizing the internet to silence and punish dissent.

will elliot be absolved of all charges?
most likely,and that is even after the prosecutor changed the charges in the last minutes before sentencing in order to create a broader charge.

but that does not change the fact that elliot's life as he knew it...is over.

which is why i see a real and present danger with an overly PC community and social justice warriors who wish to impose their own set of morals on all of us.

we can look back in our own history and see the dangers of institutionalized morality police (looking at you christians).

this form of social control by way of internet bullying promotes censorship,stifles debate and literally quashes dissent.the fear of speaking your mind because it may draw negative attention from those who disagree and then translate to real world consequences that are long-lasting.

and as i said in another video,this new brand of feminism has almost nothing in common with the feminism you or i are accustomed and familiar with,at all.

i urge you to watch the video i linked to from girl writes what.she breaks down this case in a most excellent way,and it will become apparent that this new breed of feminists are just that...a new breed.

What attracted you into conversation here is that the Sift is a de facto place for atheists to hang out. When you "speak your mind" about religion and atheism, there's two problems. The first is that since we are overwhelmingly non-believers, opinions against atheism and pro-religion are going to irritate a greater number of people, and so get the most attention. Our opinions against religion only offend you and maybe one or two other people ever, that I've seen. It's a numbers thing. Don't take it personally. The second is that, as I've mentioned already in this thread, you do come off supremely arrogant in your beliefs. Just saying, from our perspective. I'll turn it around to your perspective for a second. Consider these two sentences, a) "I consider the Bible to be fairy tales, and I don't understand why Christians people believe it's true." and b) "It's better to question the world rather than blindly accept a book of fairy tales." After which of these two sentences are you more likely to be able to continue reading for several more paragraphs, presumably all written in the same tone, with an open, clear, unangry mind? For most people —even atheists— the tone of the first sentence is preferable and more conducive to communication.

I'm not offended by your conversation, or your videos. In the past, I may have overreacted to insults, but they don't really bother me any longer. I am not sitting here enraged because some atheist suggested that God doesn't exist. I have heard just about every nasty thing anyone could possibly say about God, and then some. People have called me every sort of name that you could call someone. Even you can't resist putting in a dart here and there. That's just the way it is. If I let that bother me then I wouldn't be able to talk to anyone here.

If I've come off as arrogant, then that is unfortunate, because I don't feel superior to anyone here. I apologize to anyone who thinks that is the case. I am usually very direct in what I say, and I don't beat around the bush, and perhaps that has ruffled a few feathers. However, I always try to temper my speech with compassion and understanding. I don't think that is a fair characterization, and I think you are also ignoring the hyper sensitivity people have about their beliefs.

I've been using the sift since 06 or 07; the reason I finally signed up is because of the antitheistic bent the site had taken. Perhaps it was always there and I didn't really notice it. In any case, as a long time visitor here, I felt the site no longer represented me and I felt compelled to speak up for the other side of the argument. So I was not drawn to the sift because of atheism; I had already been using the sift for a long time.

I'll turn it back to the non-theist's perspective now. After listening to a cogent talk from Feynman explaining quite clearly why he would prefer to have no answer rather than possibly have a wrong answer, your first pitch over the plate was, "It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it", and then all rest of the stuff that followed that shows you didn't hear what he said at all. Feynman clearly doesn't prefer to "imagine that the answer is something else, because he doesn't like it." Then you used that as a launch pad for an assault on scientists in general through quotemining. I didn't read past the first paragraph. I moved straight down to see the reaction to your tone, and sure enough, it had started in earnest. I'd call that a failure in communication, unless you just wanted to vent, and maybe that day that's all the satisfaction you wanted. OK, but there you are. And you do this often enough, and people will see your avatar at the head of a comment somewhere else, and immediately their minds will shift into attack/defense mode, and your chances of communicating directly to their minds is almost zero – and they haven't even read a word yet.

Yet, someone who usually criticizes me agreed with me and said I had a good point. You say I didn't understand what Richard said, but apparently I understood it well enough to make a coherent point in opposition to what he said. What you're guilty of here is cherry picking. That sentence was part of an overall point and wasn't mean to be taken by itself.

In any case you say I failed, and perhaps I did in some ways, but not in the way you have asserted. You're right and you are wrong about what you've said here, but I get your overall point.

The fact is, since I've been here, this is the way people here have reacted to me. I don't get this reaction everywhere I go. Some of this is my fault, and some of it isn't. Either way I am not complaining. It is what it is. There is always room for improvement.

And to your comment about being invited. This place wasn't primarily designed for people to communicate opinions. It was designed for people to enjoy themselves while they procrastinate, feel a part of something, get some pseudo-community feelings going. There's no rule against giving any opinions here, nor against coming in large part to represent a certain opinion, but doing so runs against the main purpose of the place, organically defined by the intent of the people who come. This isn't an ideas discussion/debates forum with focus on arguing points to a conclusion. You can do that, but that's not the main purpose. What you tend to do here makes it more difficult for others to achieve their main purpose here, which is kicking up and not really thinking for an hour or two. And uh-oh, there's a comment from sb, killing the buzz. We could ignore it, but we just can't help reading what it says even though we already know it's almost certain to infuriate us with a relentless brand of reasoning that we do not understand.

Come on. People are not just here to relax, they are also here to promote their political, philosophical and (anti)religious ideologies. The sift loves red meat. People here love to express their opinions about what they love and what they hate, and they love to argue when anyone disagrees with them.

I get what you're saying. I could be more sensitive to how my comments will be perceived, and try to say things in a different way. I agree with you here. I'll keep it in mind.

In the end, however, the main purpose of this site is whatever the site operator purposes. What the site operator has said is that I am a valuable member of this community.

Fallacious arguments? Every time I point out a mistake, you invent a convenient new rule for understanding the Bible (or more likely you copy-paste what it says on some apologia clearinghouse website). I could literally find a quote that says, "oranges are black" and you'd justify it somehow. I just found a passage that gives two incompatible lineages from Joram to Joatham. And in a book that's supposed to be completely true, you excuse it by telling me the writers are taking artistic licence? WTF????? This isn't a poetry slam! It's the bloody word of God! If you claim everything in it is true, so much so that you've given up sex, condemn gay people, etc., then everything else in it *must* be literally true or you have no foundation for giving up sex or condemning gay people. Those could be metaphorical warnings about the lure of great pleasures in general. Either one of those things about Joram and Joatham written in the Bible is false, or anyone can point to any passage and call it optional, or poetry, or a style of writing, or just a metaphor. You can't have it both ways.

Now this is simply your ignorance talking. When I gave you my answer about the lineage in Matthew, I wasn't just pulling something out of a hat. Apparently you haven't heard of Chiastic structure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiastic_structure

It's not false, it is simply a writing style employed by Matthew to emphasize the lineage in a particular way. This is not some kind of desperate analysis to cover up a mistake, but is a well known style used in ancient literature. I'm not making excuses, or putting off something to metaphor; Matthew was definitely using Chiastic structure, and that is why that verse is symmetrical.

First, I'm saying the effects of personal prayer *can* be scientifically measured, so either your contention that God will not be tested is bunk, or self-prayer is really just meditation. You also didn't understand the set-up of the prayer-for-other test. In that scenario, there were real ill people in the hospitals, and they compared the outcomes for patients who had had others sincerely praying for them from a distance versus those who didn't. IOW, the sincere prayer happened. There has never been any measured health benefit for the ill people. They died off and recovered in equal numbers.

No, they can't be scientifically measured. You would never know during your test whether God was simply feeding you a certain kind of result. Think about it. God knows the entire time that you're trying to test for His existence outside of what He ordained (faith in Jesus Christ). His choice is either to give you results that will prove His existence outside of Christ or results that will make it ambiguous. What do you think He is going to do?

You keep saying that my position is one of cognitive dissonance. Look at yourself. You twist your mind into any shape you need for your dogma to hold true, never once truly considering the possibility that it's all in your head. You've said the words that you might be wrong, but you've never shown it's more than lip service. I've never seen you take a critical eye to your position on God and the Bible, despite the numerous opportunities I and others have given to you.

And this is exactly what Feynman's talking about when he says the scientific approach starts from the position that all hypotheses are wrong, then goes about trying to prove it through observation. Anything that's still standing afterwards is good scientific theory.

You're acting is if I have no evidence for my beliefs. If it was just a matter of believing the bible was true because I wanted to believe it, you might have a point. The reason I believe the bible is true because of personal revelation. I experience the presence of God in my daily life. It would be illogical for me to deny the existence of God based on the evidence I have received. I do not "twist my mind into any shape" to believe what I read in the bible. My worldview is internally consistent, and it is also rational. You may find it irrational because of your presuppositions, but that is because you reject the evidence I have receive apriori. To you there must always be some other explanation, and that is the way you interpret everything I say. You've already come to the conclusion that I am deluding myself, and everything I say you filter through that conclusion. Rather than letting the evidence interpret the conclusion, you are interpreting the evidence through the conclusion.

Religion, on the other hand, starts from the assuming the conclusion that God and the Bible are real, and any observational facts that don't line up must themselves be wrong facts, no matter how well documented they are. And when those facts can no longer be denied, then the Bible passages in question are suddenly no longer considered to have literal meaning, and now have only a "metaphorical" meaning, or must be understood from a different perspective.

If every word in the Bible is subject to this convenient wishy-washy fanciful method of interpretation, then it's a lousy foundation for a system of faith. You cannot follow anything that you can change the meaning of by arbitrarily saying, "That part is meant to be understood non-literally." The Bible, as it stands now, is either a 100% true book that we humans are incapable of understanding; OR a book that we are meant to learn from that also has lots of loopholes in it. It cannot be both, not as it stands now. The whole Bible should be re-written such that what's left in it is literal unmistakable unfudgeable truth. I think it would be a very, very short book, or, a much longer book filled with qualifications, something along these lines:

I'm well aware that many Christians have compromised with the world and reinterpreted the bible to reflect worldly wisdom, but I'm not one of them. Though not everything in the bible (like the song of solomon for instance) could, or should be taken literally, I believe it contains the literal history of planet Earth. As I've explained in other threads, I didn't always believe that. I assumed where science said it was right, the bible was wrong. It was only when I questioned that and investigated the evidence that I found it was the other way around. I believe the bible is true not only because of revelation, but because of the evidence, not in spite of it. You have unfairly mischaracterized me, because I am the last person you will talk to who will turn the bible into a metaphor to avoid the facts.

Otherwise, as you seem to fear about secular morality, the Bible itself could be interpreted to mean absolutely anything by anyone at any time, if they thought hard enough about it.

I don't fear that, I know that. You're absolutely right, you could make the bible say anything you want to. People do it all the time. It's only a literal reading that makes any sense. Even atheists know that:

destroy adam and eve and original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God and take away the meaning of His death

-american atheist association

>> ^messenger:

stuff

@shinyblurry

Well, the difference here on the sift is that it is not by default a place for atheists to hang out … If you look at any video on religion here, people feel free to speak their mind about Christianity and Christians but for some reason they take exception when I do the same. I understand what your argument is about and what you're saying, which I appreciate and recognize as being essentially valid, but your comment about being uninvited doesn't apply.

What attracted you into conversation here is that the Sift is a de facto place for atheists to hang out. When you "speak your mind" about religion and atheism, there's two problems. The first is that since we are overwhelmingly non-believers, opinions against atheism and pro-religion are going to irritate a greater number of people, and so get the most attention. Our opinions against religion only offend you and maybe one or two other people ever, that I've seen. It's a numbers thing. Don't take it personally. The second is that, as I've mentioned already in this thread, you do come off supremely arrogant in your beliefs. Just saying, from our perspective. I'll turn it around to your perspective for a second. Consider these two sentences, a) "I consider the Bible to be fairy tales, and I don't understand why Christians people believe it's true." and b) "It's better to question the world rather than blindly accept a book of fairy tales." After which of these two sentences are you more likely to be able to continue reading for several more paragraphs, presumably all written in the same tone, with an open, clear, unangry mind? For most people —even atheists— the tone of the first sentence is preferable and more conducive to communication.

I'll turn it back to the non-theist's perspective now. After listening to a cogent talk from Feynman explaining quite clearly why he would prefer to have no answer rather than possibly have a wrong answer, your first pitch over the plate was, "It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it", and then all rest of the stuff that followed that shows you didn't hear what he said at all. Feynman clearly doesn't prefer to "imagine that the answer is something else, because he doesn't like it." Then you used that as a launch pad for an assault on scientists in general through quotemining. I didn't read past the first paragraph. I moved straight down to see the reaction to your tone, and sure enough, it had started in earnest. I'd call that a failure in communication, unless you just wanted to vent, and maybe that day that's all the satisfaction you wanted. OK, but there you are. And you do this often enough, and people will see your avatar at the head of a comment somewhere else, and immediately their minds will shift into attack/defense mode, and your chances of communicating directly to their minds is almost zero – and they haven't even read a word yet.

You're one of the only people here placing a high priority on communicating anything, let alone representing a specific point of view. The rest of us are just here for fun, and there is no success or failure except inasmuch as we enjoy ourselves. So when jinx says, "We're both ignorant. Only one of us knows it", jinx doesn't care how to take it, or how you feel the next time you see the handle. If you're here to represent something, you should really think about the effect you think your message and tone will have every time you hit the "submit" button.

And to your comment about being invited. This place wasn't primarily designed for people to communicate opinions. It was designed for people to enjoy themselves while they procrastinate, feel a part of something, get some pseudo-community feelings going. There's no rule against giving any opinions here, nor against coming in large part to represent a certain opinion, but doing so runs against the main purpose of the place, organically defined by the intent of the people who come. This isn't an ideas discussion/debates forum with focus on arguing points to a conclusion. You can do that, but that's not the main purpose. What you tend to do here makes it more difficult for others to achieve their main purpose here, which is kicking up and not really thinking for an hour or two. And uh-oh, there's a comment from sb, killing the buzz. We could ignore it, but we just can't help reading what it says even though we already know it's almost certain to infuriate us with a relentless brand of reasoning that we do not understand.

@GeeSussFreeK, I think you're looking for some unifying philosophical principle that ties the liberal/progressive policy positions together.

Essentially all the liberals I know are some form of consequentialist. Meaning, they believe the moral value of an action depends on the consequences of that action for overall human happiness. When liberals disagree about a particular policy, we're usually debating which option best maximizes human happiness.

I say all liberals care about individual rights, because they think human happiness is greatly increased when individuals are empowered to act to fulfill their potential. You can't do that if you live in a society where you can be locked up without due process, or can be jailed for speaking your mind, or can't marry the person you love. But it also means you can't live up to your potential if you can't get an education, or needed medical treatment, or have to put up with dangerous working conditions in order to earn the money to support yourself.

On your question about whether social conservatives are in some sense justified by their desire to ban gay marriage "for the greater good", I would say that there's nothing wrong with them trying to do something for "the greater good", they're just wrong about gay marriage bans having a positive overall effect on society. They're discounting the suffering bans on gay marriage causes, and they're fabricating the suffering allowing it would cause for non-gay people.

If you want a more rigorous framework, I suggest looking at John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism. I won't say that's necessarily the bible of all liberalism, but it certainly should give some insight into the thought process of the left when it comes to thinking about right and wrong (and between a just society, and unjust society).

@blankfist I have to say, this is just getting sad. A City Council deciding on a building fire code regulation? Aren't there real injustices still happening in the world?

IMO, the people objecting raised mostly reasonable questions about it. The video doesn't show the answer to the reasonable questions, just to the boneheaded ones (e.g. you mean you're going ahead even though we whined at you in person?). If people don't like what the council does, they have plenty of recourse to take.

The council are all elected officials, and the people objecting are unable to make their case to the people of the city about why this should move their vote in the next election. They can file suit against the law if they think it violates some sort of Constitutional statute. Or worst comes to worst, sue the city if something does indeed go wrong and they incur damages because of the lockbox.

As to the conversation @GeeSussFreeK and @Skeeve are having about "the merit of an idea does not depend on the number of people who hold that idea", while I agree that statement is true, it also is almost a non sequitur. Gallileo was prosecuted by the Catholic church for saying things that later turned out to be true. George Bush wasn't tried for war crimes, even though he's directly confessed to ordering crimes against humanity (waterboarding).

If you want to see your meritorious ideas gain the force of law, you need to win popular support for those meritorious ideas. Saying "free speech is in the Constitution" isn't at all a guarantee you're going to be legally allowed to speak your mind. Free speech (or any other right you think you're entitled to), will only persist as long as a significant portion of the population feel strongly that you should have it.

So back to the actual lockbox case. Suppose the government accepted all liability for damages that may result from lockbox abuse. Does that set your minds at ease? If not, what "right" is it you think is being violated?

So true, flying is not a right, it's a privilege, just like leaving your house whenever you want or speaking your mind.

"America is now under martial law
Stay in your home
Do not attempt contact with loved ones,
insurance agents, or attorneys
Do not attempt to think or depression may occur
Stay in your homes
Curfew is at 7 p.m. sharp, after work
Anyone caught outside the gates of their
subdivision sectors after curfew, will be shot
Remain calm
Do not panic
Your neighborhood watch officer will be by
to collect urine samples in the morning
Anyone caught interferring with the collection
of urine samples will be shot
Stay in your homes
Remain calm
The number one enemy of progress is question
National security is more important than individual will
All sports broadcasts will proceed as normal
No more than two people may gather anywhere without permission
Use only the drugs prescribed by your boss or supervisor
Be happy
Obey all orders without question
Be happy
At last, everything is done for you"

It must be nice living in a world without shades of gray.

You keep wanting to paint me as someone who condones their religious/extremist views. The point I've been trying to make, and that you keep wanting to avoid, is that not all of them are true believers - and that those who join the Taliban for religious reasons are not the same as those who join for nationalist reasons. Observe the same trend in the American army - some do it for personal reasons, some do it for America, and some do it for Christ. Is it so hard to believe the bad guys forces might have the same factions?

Official protocol eh? Rendition, waterboarding etc. etc. is all official protocol. Does this condemn all members of the armed forces? Or just the ranking members who make policy? Hmmm...

Praising God condemns them all? Visit any American base abroad and count how many go to church or pray regularly. Hmmmm....

Definition of the Taliban eh? Thats a good idea. From Wikipedia:

The Taliban, alternative spelling Taleban,[5] (Pashto: طالبان ṭālibān, meaning "students") is a Wahhabi Islamist political movement that governed Afghanistan from 1996 until it was overthrown in late 2001. It has regrouped since 2004 and revived as a strong insurgency movement governing mainly local Pashtun areas during night and fighting a guerrilla war against the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)

I see the Islamist political movement...and then I see insurgency. I have no doubts the Islamic extremists run the show. I also have no doubts the insurgency (Nationalist) aspect is a big draw in recruiting. Much like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban recruits based on resentment and anger towards imperial powers. You know this, I'm sure.

There's no such thing as a moderate Taliban member? Says who? You'll have to provide more than your word on that one. I'll rely on practicality and realism.

I had no intention of lumping you in with the Fox News assholes. I was meaning to display the various political factions within any given movement - devout doesn't always mean extremist. Not every American pastor or Priest is a Phelps supporter at heart - and not every Afghan insurgent is a wahhabist at heart. You see that, don't you?

I'm guessing many of them signed up to fight the Imperial invaders, not just to woman-beat and Jew-hate. If that were the case, you wouldn't see the informants and intelligence sources from within Taliban-held areas that Americans and other NATO forces rely on for intel, would you?

I despise extremist religious/political philosophy as much as you do. But, I also understand that I would sign up with the nearest big group of assholes in my part of the world if it meant we could better fight off foreign invaders.

>> ^LostTurntable:

I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.
Yes, but the Allied forces who have done horrible things aren't acting on official protocol. Taliban terrorists who attack and murder women are doing so because their ideology dictates that's okay.
I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists.
Go back and count how many times they praise God in that video. Even if not every soldier is a die-hard member of the Taliban (and in that video, they all were) they are part of an extremist Islamic political movement. That is the definition of the Taliban. Look it up.
They are also inhuman savages that beat women for no reason. That's also a fact. It is a strict part of the Taliban idealogy, they go hand-in-hand. Breaking that rule is paramount to breaking any other rule set by the Taliban. There's no such thing as a "moderate" Taliban member.
And for fuck's sake don't lump me in with the Faux News idiots and the anti-"Mosque" assholes. You want to build a mosque on Ground Zero? Go nuts. Build 80. Because the people in NYC who want to build a mosque AREN'T THE FUCKING TALIBAN.
I am sure that many people in Afghanistan do not want the US forces there. But there are just as many who don't want the Taliban there. Saying "not all Taliban soldiers are bad" is like saying "not all Nazi soldiers are bad" that may be true, but they are supporting a cause that is without a doubt entirely evil. So fuck them. They made their choice to sign up with woman-beating, Jew-hating, freedom-denying (and yes, these guys actually do hate freedom, as sad as it is. Under Taliban rule you aren't allowed to speak your mind, do what you want or even listen to music.) assholes who deserve to die.

>> ^Throbbin:
Don't be simple.
I am well aware of the acid attacks. I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.
I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists. I'd bet a good amount of money that many of them joined up because they don't want Team America there. I probably would have if I were in their shoes, and I'm not religious in any way.
"He's a warlord" - yeah, and how much do you want to bet General Petraeus has a summer home and a regular home?
They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out - sounds like the ultra conservatives in America and Canada. Have you seen any of the anti-immigration or anti-NY-mosque rallies lately?
I'm not pro-Taliban, but I am pro-truth. And the truth is that not all Talibanis are crazed religious extremists, and that once in awhile it's a good idea to remember that the people we are fighting (in their country) are people too, not just maniacs like the MSM would have you believe.
>> ^LostTurntable:
Surprise surprise - the "bad guys" aren't all evil monstrous brutal animals. Some of them are just normal folks who resent Team America invading their country and telling them what to do.
I guess he wasn't invited on the mission where Taliban forces attacked schoolgirls with acid.
I understand the war is a complicated issue, but these are holy warrior assholes who enslave women for their own perverted satisfaction. Notice how the commander used to have several houses? You think he got them via good stark market deals/ No, he's a warlord.
These are also religious zealots. They don't just want "Team America" out. They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out. Or dead. Preferably dead.
You can be against the war, that's great. But don't be pro-Taliban.

I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.

Yes, but the Allied forces who have done horrible things aren't acting on official protocol. Taliban terrorists who attack and murder women are doing so because their ideology dictates that's okay.

I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists.

Go back and count how many times they praise God in that video. Even if not every soldier is a die-hard member of the Taliban (and in that video, they all were) they are part of an extremist Islamic political movement. That is the definition of the Taliban. Look it up.

They are also inhuman savages that beat women for no reason. That's also a fact. It is a strict part of the Taliban idealogy, they go hand-in-hand. Breaking that rule is paramount to breaking any other rule set by the Taliban. There's no such thing as a "moderate" Taliban member.

And for fuck's sake don't lump me in with the Faux News idiots and the anti-"Mosque" assholes. You want to build a mosque on Ground Zero? Go nuts. Build 80. Because the people in NYC who want to build a mosque AREN'T THE FUCKING TALIBAN.

I am sure that many people in Afghanistan do not want the US forces there. But there are just as many who don't want the Taliban there. Saying "not all Taliban soldiers are bad" is like saying "not all Nazi soldiers are bad" that may be true, but they are supporting a cause that is without a doubt entirely evil. So fuck them. They made their choice to sign up with woman-beating, Jew-hating, freedom-denying (and yes, these guys actually do hate freedom, as sad as it is. Under Taliban rule you aren't allowed to speak your mind, do what you want or even listen to music.) assholes who deserve to die.


>> ^Throbbin:

Don't be simple.
I am well aware of the acid attacks. I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.
I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists. I'd bet a good amount of money that many of them joined up because they don't want Team America there. I probably would have if I were in their shoes, and I'm not religious in any way.
"He's a warlord" - yeah, and how much do you want to bet General Petraeus has a summer home and a regular home?
They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out - sounds like the ultra conservatives in America and Canada. Have you seen any of the anti-immigration or anti-NY-mosque rallies lately?
I'm not pro-Taliban, but I am pro-truth. And the truth is that not all Talibanis are crazed religious extremists, and that once in awhile it's a good idea to remember that the people we are fighting (in their country) are people too, not just maniacs like the MSM would have you believe.
>> ^LostTurntable:
Surprise surprise - the "bad guys" aren't all evil monstrous brutal animals. Some of them are just normal folks who resent Team America invading their country and telling them what to do.
I guess he wasn't invited on the mission where Taliban forces attacked schoolgirls with acid.
I understand the war is a complicated issue, but these are holy warrior assholes who enslave women for their own perverted satisfaction. Notice how the commander used to have several houses? You think he got them via good stark market deals/ No, he's a warlord.
These are also religious zealots. They don't just want "Team America" out. They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out. Or dead. Preferably dead.
You can be against the war, that's great. But don't be pro-Taliban.

Well, @Crake that wasn't my emotional reaction at all, it was just what you can, sadly, reasonably expect in certain venues. Ideally, you'd be able to speak your mind freely everywhere, but the reality of it is that you cannot do or say certain things certain places and expect that other people obey the law.

I wouldn't go through Jerusalem with a drawing of mohammed, because I would, rightly so, fear for my life - even though, if my person was protected, I totally would do it.

We should not allow people to break the law, because they were offended by someone using their free speech at all, I don't think I was getting at that either. I was just saying that you have to know where to say what and where not to say it.

Throughout history, the only blood to be spilled has been done at the hands of the religious? Does that make sense?

In public, there should be caps on speech. In the US, the principle of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is on well known restriction on free speech. The line is also drawn on public hate speech that incites immediate violence. I think that we should also restrict speech that leads to violence, as many countries do. I don't care too much about what a person does or says in their home, if it doesn't harm me.

Run that buy me again? Hang on, one more time I didn't quiet believe my eyes! I, wait I can't say anything because of the new caps on freedom of expression. Oh wait, this website is now gone because of the new international laws that stop us from free speech. Guess what Longde, your speech on this website would be capped just as everyone else would be.

Welcome to the world were no one can speak without being beheaded because "someone might get offended." Hang on, while we're at it lets go ahead and hang:

• George Carlin Posthumously


• Howard Zinn Posthumously


• Noam Chomsky


• Theo van Gogh (film director)- Oh wait, they got him already.


• Frank Zappa


• Saad Eddin Ibrahim

Wait, here is a whole list you can start with; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_speech_activists.

Hell while we are being politically correct lets go ahead and enact a law that will make mandatory executions for all independent investigative journalists. I mean while we are going all out here, why don't we go ahead and make it a crime to be anything independent.

I think someone said this before me, "There can be no freedom without free speech."Free Press. You know what they say? If you don't like it don't read it! If you don't like it don't watch it! If you don't like it don't eat it! If you don't like it go back to your protective bubble!

Hypberbole aside where I come from it is an inalienable right to speak your mind even if it offends someone. It is that offended persons right to think you are a douche bag. But as soon as there is violence both parties are in the wrong. Justice is properly blind but in most cases she is not stupid; she doth not tread across that line to become a tyrant.

Quotes from one John Stuart Mill speaking on the Harm Principle.

If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. (1978, 15)

John Stuart Mill quote on the Harm Principle, again:

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[28] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.[28]

What do these quotes mean to you and I? Well they mean simply; that a person can speak their mind so long as the argument presented is valid even if it is embarrassingly immoral. That means, as it is already a statute the US, that hate crime is not free speech. But the prosecuting party has the burden of proof. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person had the intention of causing harm with said speech. Then we enter the realm of Libel and Slander. A person has to proven knowingly lieing about someone in order to be charged with Libel or Slander.

I have for you, sir or mam a quote from Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, this quote is often confused with Samuel Johnson's "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Hell is paved with good intentions." Even earlier than that, it's been attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153)

good talking with you too. let's hope there's a next time, soon.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
was nice chattin with ya tonight my man.
dont ever feel cuz we disagree on somethin you cant speak your mind.
i prefer an honest argument over one based on pre-conceived ideas.
and i love your humor...dry..veeeeery dry.my fave kind.
peace out man.
namaste.

was nice chattin with ya tonight my man.
dont ever feel cuz we disagree on somethin you cant speak your mind.
i prefer an honest argument over one based on pre-conceived ideas.
and i love your humor...dry..veeeeery dry.my fave kind.
peace out man.
namaste.