literally at no point in history, let alone this conversation, have i ever said anything that could possibly be construed as "i am not racist", So leave your bullshit ad hominems out of this.

I believe then the confusion here is that you're labeling people on the left trying to limit racism as reverse-racism racists. As opposed to traditional racists. Basically everyone is a racist to you?

not every single liberal, but yes. most liberals are hypocrites, and 99% are racist. whether that means renaming harvard or being part of the KKK, im not distinguishing. both are horrible

Alright, guy who's avatar is a swastika, I'm sure your racial sensitivity is the stuff of legends, but I don't think there's any bridging this worldview gap we've got between us.

literally at no point in history, let alone this conversation, have i ever said anything that could possibly be construed as "i am not racist", So leave your bullshit ad hominems out of this.

I believe then the confusion here is that you're labeling people on the left trying to limit racism as reverse-racism racists. As opposed to traditional racists. Basically everyone is a racist to you?

It's a red light, so he isn't.

Can you not read? Right there in the title.

Adding up the video lengths, the light's been red for 45 seconds. It's probably going to take him at least another 30 to jump down and clear the wire away to let trucks through. According to what I can find online most lights are about 2 minutes at the longest, so he's got just a few seconds to stop what he's doing to clean up before the light changes. Maybe he does, the video ends early, but it sure doesn't look like it!

"It's probably going to take him at least another 30 to jump down and clear the wire away to let trucks through."

Why? It took him like 10 seconds to set up the wire in the first gif, and it would obviously be even easier to take it down.

And you seem to have fucked up your own math. As you said it's been 45 seconds. A red light can be 2 minutes long, and even a very realistic average would be 75-90 seconds or so. Even if it took him an absurd 30 seconds to jump down and rip off a wire he'd be absolutely fine, since 45 + 30 is 75 and not 120 as you seem to think.

I did fuck up my math. I'm sorry weird juggling prick, do your thing

Good thing I'm neither.

Fun fact: there's currently one republican KKK member and about 10 democrat members.

the connection is that theyre racist. whether that means shitting on black people and favoring whites, or that means shitting on white people and favoring blacks.

So in your mind liberals have all kinds of random contradicting agendas, but the one thread that unites them all is their unfailing racism? Jesus man...

not every single liberal, but yes. most liberals are hypocrites, and 99% are racist. whether that means renaming harvard or being part of the KKK, im not distinguishing. both are horrible

Alright, guy who's avatar is a swastika, I'm sure your racial sensitivity is the stuff of legends, but I don't think there's any bridging this worldview gap we've got between us.

literally at no point in history, let alone this conversation, have i ever said anything that could possibly be construed as "i am not racist", So leave your bullshit ad hominems out of this.

I believe then the confusion here is that you're labeling people on the left trying to limit racism as reverse-racism racists. As opposed to traditional racists. Basically everyone is a racist to you?

Then call them ISIS. And if you can't, because they don't have any direct ties to ISIS, then they are statistical outliers just like the Christian terrorists. If we're trying to have meaningful and fair labels, by all means label terrorists by their faction (ISIS, Taliban, etc). But Muslim is NOT one of their factions unless we're willing to extend the specific religious label to every terrorist who is religious.

I hope I'm making the point clearly, it's been a while since I've had this discussion. It's a question of depth on the labeling issue. If it were similar to biology, the labeling of these terrorists would be something like: Living -> Animal -> Human -> Male -> Arab -> Muslim -> ISIS. Labeling them Animal or Human is as misleading of a tag as Mulsim, because you're including too many individuals that aren't a part of the group you're trying to isolate. Calling them Muslim (instead of something like jihadists or ISIS), while not incorrect, is drawing unnecessary emphasis on their religion, instead of their crazy fucked up interpretation of said religion.

If you re-read my statement, you'll see my point is that the religious label is not widely used for all cases. Nobody has used the term "radical Christian" for the mass shooters/bombers that identify as Christians, even when they claim their motives were Biblically driven. If we're going to label people like that it either needs to be universal or not at all. Otherwise there is very clearly an ulterior motive going on (such as fear-mongering or us-versus-them mentality). It's important to be able to see these kinds of biases in the news so we're not just being fed opinions.

Then call them ISIS. And if you can't, because they don't have any direct ties to ISIS, then they are statistical outliers just like the Christian terrorists. If we're trying to have meaningful and fair labels, by all means label terrorists by their faction (ISIS, Taliban, etc). But Muslim is NOT one of their factions unless we're willing to extend the specific religious label to every terrorist who is religious.

I hope I'm making the point clearly, it's been a while since I've had this discussion. It's a question of depth on the labeling issue. If it were similar to biology, the labeling of these terrorists would be something like: Living -> Animal -> Human -> Male -> Arab -> Muslim -> ISIS. Labeling them Animal or Human is as misleading of a tag as Mulsim, because you're including too many individuals that aren't a part of the group you're trying to isolate. Calling them Muslim (instead of something like jihadists or ISIS), while not incorrect, is drawing unnecessary emphasis on their religion, instead of their crazy fucked up interpretation of said religion.

Because Islam is the only religion still oppressing entire nations and murdering innocence daily.

ayyy you actually believe this?

You seem to have forgotten about the Lord's Resistance Army.

Ever heard of Buddhism in Myanmar?
They have been killing and deporting Christians and Muslims until recently.

Eh, you could make arguments that Hinduism and Buddhism at least contribute to the "oppressing" part with untouchables, but how much of that is religion and how much of that is culture is anyone's guess.

A nation run by greedy, cruel people could use literally any religion to justify and codify their theocratic powerbase. Culture and history are the enemy of progress in Middle Eastern countries, not a religion adhered to by hundreds of millions of people who don't even live in that region.

Eh, not technically true. Take a look at how Israel is treating their Muslim neighbors.

Israel deals with Paris style attacks on a daily basis.

What are you referring too?

Do you just not look at the news or...? They launch missiles indiscriminately. They're worse than US drone strikes. Paris style attacks daily? You're deluding yourself. Israel gives out ten times the punishment they take.

Why don't you look up the actual statistics of the Israeli-Palestien conflict. Israel, including both military and civilian, has twenty dead and one hundred and ninty two injured in the year 2015 thus far. Palestine has suffered 96 dead and over three thousand wounded. And you want to say Palestine is pulling more shit? How about you google this shit and look at the hard numbers instead of sensationalist media.

Numbers!? Fuck the numbers! Let me use my feelings instead!

Yeah, I'm sure Falah Hamdi Zamel Abumaria was totally hiding Hamas soldiers in his house when he was murdered by Israeli forces trying to render medical aid to his son who was shot by stray fire. They raided the house after a fucking pot fell out of their window. I'm sure that was the Hamas, though.

I'm sure Muhammad Husam Barakat was hiding Hamas soldiers on his bus when two israeli civilians assaulted him with knives on his route.

Moussa Othman must have been transporting Hamas belligerents when Israeli settlers began pelting his taxi with rocks.

I'm sure all those homes that Israel keeps demolishing with people still inside were totally warned months in advance, despite no evidence that their building permits aren't invalid and no actual warnings on record.

Loay Bakri must be a Hamas sympathizer. Praise God for the six youths that assaulted him with steel rebar and shattered his hand.

There are hundreds of other stories just like these if you'd bother to actually look.

Yeah, the Palestines pull their fair share of shit. But do not pretend for a second that the level of force and the innocent casualties are remotely justified due to the small handful of rockets hitting empty fields. In what goddamn world would it be ok for a country to level entire apartment blocks with missiles because Hamas 'might' be hiding there? Destroying hundreds of homes and shelters while israel citizens sit on hilltops and fucking cheer. They've wiped out UN relief shelters.

Look, I very much understand where you're coming from. Two wrongs don't make a right.

But at the same time, Israel's gotta co-exist with a group of people that routinely and regularly carry out terrorist attacks on its citizens.

Look, after the Paris attacks, that same week France was launching air raids against ISIS. When the twin towers fell, we started an entire war, and said it was justified. Israel hasn't done that, they've responded only to specific threats. Did they do so with more force then necessary? I'm certain they did, at least at times. Were some of those threats imaginary, or mistaken? Probably. But I have a hard time imagining, were anyone else put in their position, that they would do any better. In fact, I'd argue that things would probably be much worse, just looking at the comments Europeans make about mostly peaceful legal Muslim immigrants and refugees.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't advocate for Israel doing an even better job. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop outbursts of racial violence against Palestinians from Israelis. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get the Israeli government to hold its citizens accountable when crimes do happen. But making Israel out as some sort of monster is just wrong.

One final thing: you mentioned rockets hitting fields. If someone fired a gun at you, but missed, would you consider it justified to attack him?

If someone fired a gun at me and missed, I wouldn't reply by firing a missile at the occupied gas station I guessed he might be in. The two aren't comparable. It's called the escalation of force, and Israel really likes to escalate. That answer minor riots with live ammunition instead of dispersal tactics.

This all flies away from the original point. Islam is not the only religiously run nation that uses is religion as justification for crap. Israel exists because of Judaism and the belief that Jerusalem is the promised land. This entire situation wouldn't exist if it weren't for that.

Well, that analogy kinda breaks down when the other guy also fired a missile.

As for the original point, so, what, it's Judaism's fault for existing before Islam did? Couldn't we just as equally say it's Islam's fault for claiming the same Holy Lands as Judaism?

Palestine and the Islamic community didn't get the UN to make a ridiculously one sided partition of the country after WWII. The Jewish people hadn't been in that land for nearly two thousand years. I'd be pretty pissed if my homeland was suddenly ripped in half by people who claimed ancestry there hundreds of years ago. It could have just as easily been shared. Would there still be tensions? Of course, but nothing on the level of what it is today.

But they don't do it in the name of their god.
It's more politics to them than religion.

I think it's arguable. You can find plenty of jewish people from that part of the world approving of the mass bombings of innocent 'Islamic infidels' in the supposed defense of their holy land. The origin of the conflict is due to the jews believing they're the rightful inheritors of the kingdom.

go home /pol/ you're drunk

You are so far up your ass

If you're grounded in virtual reality you're grounded for real! I'll check it out thanks

They explode because they're getting cooked alive by Gamera's flames. The father is trying to encourage his son so he'll keep running.

It's just weird writing, like if I didn't know anything about Japanese culture except stereotypes, I would have written that line.

"Keep running son-san! I buy you pocky and anime pirrows!"

According to a Rabbi friend of mine, Judaic law (written waaaaaay before Jebus) states that you are not human until you take your first breath. Up until that point you are considered a part of the mother's body, because up until that point you would die almost instantly without her body's life support. Thus you are not a separate entity.

I'm not Jewish, but this definition of what makes a person a person always made the best sense to me.

My sister wasn't breathing at birth, and tons of feeling embryos aren't breathing in the womb, even at 9 months. They can survive at 5 months outside the womb, well before they have taken their first breath. That definition's retarded.

The odds of survival for a premature birth before 24 weeks is almost none.

Yes, we CAN keep a fetus alive, potentially. However, they almost never grow up to be healthy and usually suffer from health problems their entire lives.

The definition stills stands. The fetus needed life support, either from the mom, or a machine.
Same as someone who suffered a horrible injury and is now kept alive by machines as a vegetable.

Machines =/= Life.

How is 60% in the US almost none? Also, that doesn't say anything about 9 months, which is still before you start breathing. Additionally, you can be on life support without being a vegetable, and have machine-assisted breathing in particular. If something isn't permanently brain dead, than it is immoral to allow it to die simply because "whelp, it's on machines, therefore it's basically dead already."

This is my favorite comment on this whole fucking post. You get it.

Volcanoes actually don't do that much to harm the environment, and what harm they do is quickly balanced out naturally.
Humans are pretty much undeniably the biggest sources of environmental harm- mainly, I believe, in the form of the massive amounts of animals we raise.

Where did I let the biggest polluters off the hook? Regarding volcanoes, I really don't know what you want me to say about them. If mankind could stop volcanoes, we certainly would. It sounds like you're trying to justify your own actions by saying there are worse offenders out there... The fact that other people and things pollute doesn't absolve us from our responsibility to minimize leaking mercury/uranium/plastic/oil and other damaging things into the world.

Yeah but it's messy and fuck

we have to squat down and even then it gets on our legs and crap

fuckin terrible

L O N D O N
O
N
D
O
N

Uhh, that helps keep you warm on the cool summer night obvs

Not gonna lie, penis envy is a real thing. Dicks are so cool. I wish I could write my name in the snow.

Well, guys think vaginas are better. Except for the peeing and period thing.
You also can't sit on someones face with a dick, the same can't be said for a vagina.

Really? I've been told by bi girls that dicks are kinda gross. I think they're the best things ever.