jayme21

Registered bored user

jayme21 wrote:
That act probably had more of an impact than punching him. As it humanised the group he dehimanised.
jayme21 wrote:
robthelurker No you're wrong. If thats the case there would be no problem kicking the ass to the wannabe communists/socialists who have turned the hammer and sickle into fashion icons and support Venezuelan authoritarianism. FUCK that what the soviet union done, fucked up  and genocide to eastern europe and finland. Or beat the shit out of Russia today for their coverage and support for the ethinic cleansing in Ukraine.  Because once you start going down this subjective route no one is safe. What about extreme vegetarians who view the meat industry as genocide they able to attack meat eaters? Non violent however repulsive should be met with non violence. It's why arguments are being lost and people like trump get elected. It's why you get lengthy arguments about the right to free speech of these groups and defending the actions of protesters and whos worse. It muddies the waters and it's self defeating.
jayme21 wrote:
Regarding first picture. If you cant demonstrate your argument without violence why should anyone else choose your point of view. My issue with the "Anti Facist" movement groups i've seen is too many people get cheered for intellectually bankrupt physical attacks against physically peaceful opponents. It's not that hard to counter extremist arguments but it does mean you have to go beyond " theyre bad because i say they are"...
jayme21 wrote:
madduck the Haredi jews got an exemption when they were a very small minority, so the jewish state would have spiritual study, leaders etc. The problem is their population expanded so its not a few hundred buts its now tens of thousands. The extinction of the devout religous sect is no longer a risk. At the same time its the Haredi israelis that are the settlement builders pushing boundaries. They are rightly getting seen as a problem. Their group creates more trouble and asks for others to get the brunt of it. I've read that they believe relugouse study is as important as military, or that the religous soilders will mix with salty language and unreligous behaviours. Its not a my religon is against war ( its not in self defence). It's not religouse reasons against it imo its privilege they want to keep. As HolyGod said if their children were at risk it might temper the more aggressive sentiments in the now very large voting group. They're badically freeloadinh of Israeli security. 
jayme21 wrote:
madduck yeah the horse one made me do a double take aswell. Looked it up out of disbelief. Found a wiki for umsimulated sex in movies 

The Coming of Sin | 1978 | There are at least two versions of this film, directed by José Ramón Larraz: Sex Maniac and an Italian PAL VHS versionSodomia that contain hardcore inserts

Which led to IMDB 

A superstitious, illiterate young gypsy servant girl comes to live with a solitary female artist at her country chateau. The girl has recurring nightmares of a naked man on horseback assaulting and abusing her. As the artist takes the girl under her wing, an sensuous relationship develops between them. At the same time, the naked horseman begins to appear in reality. The girl, convinced that he represents her doom, resists him; but the artist is intrigued and a bizarre erotic triangle is established. 

So doesnt appear that it has actual bestiality just a weird italian poster. 
jayme21 wrote:
1- Law Enforcement have it, it's evidence. You don't publish evidence without a good reason e.g you're chasing a suspect and release footage so people are motivated to come forward. 6 years ago doesn't have direct baring on the current event i.e why someone at the casino handed it over to NBC.
2- That's what an investigation is for. We may never know.
3- He checked in on the 25th of September shooting happened 1st October that's nearly 2 weeks to bring stuff upto his room piecemeal.
4- Mistakes happen. Mistakes especially happen with government institutions under pressure. Did police repeat it or did it take a week to correct something being repeated?
5- Mistakes happen. Mistakes happen especially with government institutions under pressure. This is a result of 24 hour instant gratification news LEA don't have the time to double check the story before relaying it.
6- Because the shares had grown a fair bit since 2016 when he was given even more, the company had announced a buy back. He was selling them as quickly as he could banking in his pay. Shares are volatile. 
7 - Because the earlier reports of attacking a maintenance man and security guard don't link to the mass shooter until afterwards. Some guy attacking people in a hallway doesn;t equate to a mass shooter. Police had to work out where it was coming from from the high rise buildings around and then track. And police doesnt work seamlessly, with all the reports coming in not all information gets through to who it needs immediately. 

These are pretty easy answers. Why does everything have to be a conspiracy? Human behavior means people make mistakes when rushed and stressed. People expect instant answers then attack them if they were done in error. People expect the state to function perfectly without delay without being overloaded with information. People expect confidential information in active investigations to be published to satisfy their curiosity. The world and humans don't work like that.

The simplest explanation is usually correct.
jayme21 wrote:
5cats its not UN dictating US law as US need to agree and incorporate it. Which it didnt. And it would have created inertia. 
jayme21 wrote:
barry9a it creates pursuasive authority in the US legal order. That can be brought into a Supreme Court case for one. 
If you flip it , US wanted to removd the broader condemnation bits. Alling for a ban. If they make no difference on the countries themselves why did other nations not aceed? Create more pressure on countries that do execute for homisexuality , aposty adultery etc. as US and Russia would have signed. 

Not giving the wider context and legal implications in common law of this i think is poor. 
jayme21 wrote:
barry9a 2 actual wording 

Calls upon States that have not yet acceded to or ratified the Second Optional Protocol 
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death 
penalty to consider doing so;


Earlier on 


Acknowledging the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human 
Rights on the high-level panel discussion on the question of the death penalty, during which
it was concluded that a significant number of States hold that the death penalty is a form of 
torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

Its the general tone as was stated. You state death penalty is cruel inhuman and degrading punishment (where have we heard that before?) and then call yourself to consider removing it. 

Im against the death penalty. But i can see why the USA would vote against a document agrees in varying degree that death penalty is cruel and  unusual punishment and then ask itself to consider removing it.

Leaving out the wider context i think is a journalistic bias. 
jayme21 wrote:
daegog it was an all or nothing resolution. So either vote to ban death penalty which US has or vote against an absolute ban which included specifics homosexuality religion etc. You couldn't vote for the latter and not the latter. 
jayme21 wrote:
From NBC 

"The resolution, titled "The Question of the Death Penalty," passed the U.N. Human Rights Council with 27 nations voting in favor, 13 voting against and seven abstentions. The multi-page resolution condemned the imposition of the death penalty when "applied arbitrarily or in a discriminatory manner" and specifically condemned "the imposition of the death penalty as a sanction for specific forms of conduct, such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations."

In a press briefing on Tuesday, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert explained why the U.S. voted against the resolution.

"We voted against that resolution because of broader concerns with the resolution’s approach in condemning the death penalty in all circumstances," Nauert said. "The United States unequivocally condemns the application of the death penalty for conduct such as homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, and apostasy. We do not consider such conduct appropriate for criminalization.”

Tweet Id not present

Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., also responded to the backlash following the death penalty vote. In a tweet, Haley said there was "NO vote by USUN that supported the death penalty for gay people," adding, "We have always fought for justice for the LGBT community."

In a separate tweet, Haley also noted that the U.S. voted "no" to the resolution under the Obama administration, though the specific mention of "same-sex relations' was not included in previous death penalty resolution"

So US voted against a ban on death penalty which was grouped with specific examples.  US had to vote against all or nothing. The specifics only highlighted by guardian are just bias in the reporting. 
jayme21 wrote:
While white people commit crime and mass shootings but are under represented. They have commited 53% of mass shootings despite being 63% of the population. Its nor that its unique its that it is morw prevelant. But true lets look at the differences of why white people commit these types of acts less and what is causing them. Is it priviledge? Its its poor white people not feeling thier priviledge and being told how good they have it?
jayme21 wrote:

No doubt a lie but It would be funny if true.

I dont get the funny side. Not I dont understand Isis have claimed it. 

Like I could  see twisted humour if this guy was deranged and thought he was killing Isis and it was Isis tgat claimed it. Or this guy was shooting Trumo supporters thinking theyre liberals.

 I just dont see the funny side if ISIS really did have anything to do with it? 
jayme21 wrote:
layla_wilson i fail to see the humour? Not in the its bad taste type of way not laughing but cant actually see the irony or joke why it'd be funny typs of way. 
jayme21 wrote:
5cats No but the pet stealing, sweatshop, tax dodging, illegal immigrant gambling are all racist stereotypes of Chinese in the west.


I don't care about offensive humour just saw Book of Mormon other night ( not as clever as it thibks it is) but if you think its the dog eating bit thats people are annoyed about might want to broaden your horizons. 
jayme21 wrote:
kalron27 i know. Re read what i said. I disagreed with 
On Southwest, pets > humans.
It's probably  service animals>humans>pets . If it had been only the pet they probably would have removed them rather than allergy women.
jayme21 wrote:
dromed flip it , what moral argument is there not to tax it that doesnt apply to every other transaction? If someone earns/works for a wage/dividend etc. they are taxed. Then when they spend it they are taxed so the double taxation argument doesn't stand up.  Everyone is taxed when they recieve or spend money.

Someone inherits money which they've done nothing for it why shouldn't it be taxed? If anything there is a stronger argument to tax inheritance the people receiving it have done absolutely nothing for it.

Some argue but 
 "it came from hard work, frugality, discipline and making smart choices"
And that the parents who have worked hard decide to give it to their children. I call bullsh*t frankly. If a parent wants to give it to their children do it when living. Otherwise they are getting double enjoyment/use of thier wealth. Once in their life, second in thier childrens life. Transfer the house when alive then it becomes a sacrifice and choice to give to their children as they no longer have control over it and theregore enjoyment of it.

Inheritance tax brings a certian emotional draw but i find it the least defensible on the equal opportunity, why force wealth redistribution,  low taxation arguments ( which i genrally agree with) The people receiving have literally done nothing to earn it aside from being born lucky. 

And it impedes the equal opportunity in society argument. Worker A and worker B both earn 20 k a year and spend 10k on rent. Worker A inherits a house no longer pays rent. Worker A just gained an additional 10k a year to put in a savings account/invest etc. Worker B does not have the same opportunity. A decade later same amount of work and effort worker A now has 100k more. What moral argument is there for that? 

jayme21 wrote:
kalron27 probably more to do with one being a service animal. I suspect they wpuld have went the other way if it was only the pet. 
jayme21 wrote:
layla_wilson You stated among other reasons YOU were not anti semtic because semites include arabs. Lets focus on that point. From what you're saying  I guess you're right and loads of other words also count. Homophobia is massively overplayed homo means genus of homo sapiens, phobia means scared. So I doubt anyone is scared of humans ergo no homophobia exists. Trans phobia, no one is scared of transexuals they hate them, as phobia means fear it's wrong to say there is an issue of transphobia. Thats how ridiculous you are being... You get called anti semetic because you've said pretty much  Hitler had a point the jews destroyed russia and germany and they control the media. Thats nothing to do with your opinions on Israel.
jayme21 wrote:
5cats The Palestinian people have 2 homelands already: Gaza and Jordan. :-)

And you know the palestinian territories... the Fatah controlled ones
jayme21 wrote:
Started watching. Partner next to me "WTH are yoy watching" 8/10 would watch again.
jayme21 wrote:
madduck Uk politics scares me at the moment. The dehumanising nature of debate is getting worse and worse. Not just against migrants jews (from both sides) and Muslims. But i've never been comfortable with one side calling their opponents vermin. Its never they disagree its they are evil heartless non people.  When you stop viewing people as human you can do whatever you like to them and society goes down the pan... yous think the side that purpots to stand up for the forgotten would get that.
jayme21 wrote:
Gerry1of1 I paraphrased a lengthy comment in this thread. Where the user essentially said they werent anti semtic because semetic people include arabs. But a title doesnt allow me to say "There is a huge misconception of Anti-Semitism. Because I dislike some Jews and..."
jayme21 wrote:
Actually was pretty interesting, kudos!
jayme21 wrote:
The sooner the orthodox in Israel have to do military service the better. They call for annexing palestine territory instead of legitimate defence knowing their segment of society that gets a free pass from the repercussions of such language. Sooner they get to see the burden of men and womem defending Israel the better.

The only positive i see from their extremism is they prefer to blindfold themselves etc rather than force women to cover up.