Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

This was made during the Cuban Missile Crisis and perfectly sums up the event. You don't see too many political cartoons about JFK, so this is something I've always liked.

At 12/29/14 11:47 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

How do you know this?

I don't see Whites up in arms about the disproportionate incarceration of blacks that the War on Drugs has inflicted or the crushing poverty that they endure every day. Sure, they may say they care, but actions speak louder than words, and the action, or should I say the lack thereof, that Americans have taken to rectify these injustices speaks volumes about their priorities and their compassion for those who don't look like them.

Anyway, there's a reason that black people feel oppressed by the forces of racism in this country and are, by and large, angry about the state of affairs in the U.S.

What are these reasons?

Crushing poverty, bad relations with law enforcement, discrimination in the workplace, and basically all the racist shit that some opponents(Not all, of course) of President Obama have insinuated about him. Newt Gingrich called him the food stamp president. Ted Nugent called him a subhuman mongrel. The entire history of the Southern Strategy that blacks are well aware of.

That falls on the person who makes the claim.

Alright then, I'll do that shortly.

because I get the feeling that my repeating them here might fall on deaf ears.

Well, you have my full attention.

I've already provided some evidence for my claim, but I'll provide some more and I think you'll find this interesting.

Gallup has been tracking the views on interracial marriage that Whites and Blacks have expressed over the past 55 years. Naturally, these days, approval of interracial marriage is pretty high. Among blacks, it's 96%. Among Whites, it's 86%. In total, 87% of all Americans support this.

This is great and all, but it should be noted that there's still 13% of White people who don't approve of interracial marriage. And frankly, if you oppose interracial marriage, you're a racist. There's no getting around that. Sure, some Whites say they oppose it because of "the children being ostracized for being biracial" or some shit like that, but that's a pretty fucking flimsy excuse. I'm not saying that mixed-race kids have it great in this country, but their plight isn't so awful that it justifies opposition to interracial marriage. Further, historically, "mongrelization" of the races was a similar reason that Whites in the 20th century opposed this practice and was in fact the reason it was outlawed until 1967. They wanted to keep the races pure, essentially. I suspect that that's the reason some Whites still oppose it today, which makes them racist.

Further, the link I supplied shows that Southerners are, naturally, most opposed to interracial marriage. It's ludicrous to suggest that it's because they're just more empathetic to the possible plight of mixed-race kids. The truth is they're the most racist. And here's the kicker: according to the Gallup source, a majority of Whites opposed interracial marriage until 1997. That was not very long ago. At all. And you still have 14% who don't approve of this. That is a significant number to me. Progress has definitely been made, but not enough.

To be fair, my criticism of those who oppose this practice extends to people of all races. Blacks who oppose this are racists as well. Same with Hispanics, Asians, and so on.

sure you are a model...

I'm not that hot. ;P

A majority of White Americans are uncomfortable with the idea that they may be more racist than they think, or that racism didn't cease to exist in this country after the 1960s.

I'd ask you to explain this, but the term racism has too many conflicting definitions to be discussed seriously anymore. But you can try.

I disagree with the notion that racism can't be discussed seriously anymore if it still exists and affects people.

In the interest of honesty, I'll have to correct myself. I remember one poll from Pew Research Center that showed that most Whites don't think racism is no longer a problem, but I couldn't find it. In looking for it, though, I found a few polls show that show that Whites, but a plurality or slim majority, think racism is still a problem. Here is one such source.

This comes with a very serious caveat, though. From the source, it states this:

University of Connecticut professor Jack Dovidio, who has researched racism for more than 30 years, estimates up to 80 percent of white Americans have racist feelings they may not even recognize.

"We've reached a point that racism is like a virus that has mutated into a new form that we don't recognize," Dovidio said.

He added that 21st-century racism is different from that of the past.

"Contemporary racism is not conscious, and it is not accompanied by dislike, so it gets expressed in indirect, subtle ways," he said.

That "stealth" discrimination reveals itself in many different situations.

A three-year undercover investigation by the National Fair Housing Alliance found that real estate agents steered whites away from integrated neighborhoods and steered blacks toward predominantly black neighborhoods.

"Racism here is quite subtle," e-mailed CNN.com reader Blair William, originally from Trinidad, who now lives in Lexington, South Carolina. "I think that the issue is twofold. I believe that white America's perception of blacks is still generally negative based on their limited interaction with blacks, whether this is via the media or in person. ...

If you still question the existence of this kind of racism, I urge you to do some light research on the subject. Housing discrimination is still a problem for blacks and multiple studies show it. Don't take my word for it.

Also, a few studies show that resumes with stereotypically black names on them were much less likely to get a call back for an interview than ones with White-sounding names, even though the resumes were exactly the same with regard to work qualifications and educational attainment. I can show you the study if you don't believe me.

If you're white, you're statistically likely to be one of those people.

Show me.

I stand somewhat corrected, but I do maintain my position that racism is a systemic problem in America, especially the "subtle racism" that one of my sources discussed earlier in this post.

Further, and I really hate to say it, but it's possible that you hold subconsciously racist views about blacks that you might not even be aware of. This isn't to say that you definitely do, because I don't know you and can't make that judgment, but the American Psychological Association has documented this phenomenon of subtle racism and frighteningly common.

I'll certainly give this a try.

Please do. Several studies in psychology show that interaction with different groups of people can make one more empathetic to their circumstances and more willing to accept the possibility that they may face unique forms of discrimination, the existence of which is well-documented by decades of empirical research.

One of my white friends has a lot of black friends, who also happen to be my friends, and he's seen the racist treatment that they've experienced firsthand with some police officers while hanging out with them. Once, they were pulled over. In a car full of black guys and him in the backseat, the police officer suddenly asked him when he saw him if he was OK, not hurt and not in any danger. I kid you fucking not.

Another time, he was in a car with the same group of black guys and some girl, and they did nothing, but someone called the cops on them. Those cops had assault rifles pointed at them with laser sights and told them to get out of the car. Nothing happened, thank God, but I doubt that'd happened if they were all White.

At 12/29/14 10:53 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

Explain this a bit more, because you're drenching this topic with gasoline at the moment.

How? This topic is explicitly about American race relations, so the idea that a lot of Americans don't really give a shit about the plight of black people in the U.S. is something that should be discussed.

Anyway, there's a reason that black people feel oppressed by the forces of racism in this country and are, by and large, angry about the state of affairs in the U.S. You should look into those reasons through research, because I get the feeling that my repeating them here might fall on deaf ears. I could cite the numerous statistics and historical evidence to substantiate my position, but I'm not sure it'll be all that effective. A majority of White Americans are uncomfortable with the idea that they may be more racist than they think, or that racism didn't cease to exist in this country after the 1960s. If you're white, you're statistically likely to be one of those people.

Better yet, why don't you talk to a black person or two and hear about their experiences with racism in the U.S.? A conversation about the issue can go a long way towards reexamination of one's views about this problem.

At 12/29/14 10:41 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

I understand the hypocrisy behind the Ayatollah's statement made on twitter, but how is "black lives matter" an insult?

The inverse is to say that, to Americans, black lives don't matter, which is grossly untrue,

U.S. history and current events seem to indicate otherwise.

At 12/29/14 07:02 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

At 12/29/14 06:15 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Iran's Ayatollah Khameini recently tweeted #BlackLivesMatter on his Twitter page, sending a strong condemnation of US police policies.

I wonder if he's going to also tweet #HomosexualLivesMatter, #KurdishLivesMatter, or #Bahai'iLivesMatter too?

taunt
tônt
1.
provoke or challenge (someone) with insulting remarks.

This isn't the first time Iran has made such a taunt. China has said similar things too. And yes, it is very much the pot calling the kettle black.

I understand the hypocrisy behind the Ayatollah's statement made on twitter, but how is "black lives matter" an insult?

lol @ SadisticMonkey claiming that @Musician knows nothing about science and peer review while citing studies that aren't supported by science or peer-reviewed.

This is why no one here respects your opinions, dude.

At 12/22/14 08:44 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

At 12/22/14 08:28 PM, LordJaric wrote: I'll let you in on something; race is a biological myth,

Great! So let's stop pretending we are cleaved into different groups and be one as human beings! Right @Light , @Warforger ?

We are cleaved into different groups, but not because we are biologically different. As LordJaric said, it's a social construct and people unfortunately and ignorantly attach a lot of significance to the concept of race, which has resulted in many tragedies in the history of this nation, from slavery and segregation to what we deal with in the current day in the form of "subtle racism."

I'd love nothing more than for the concept of race to be abandoned along with other ignorant beliefs, such as phrenology and astrology, but that will take a long time, if it ever happens.

At 12/22/14 03:48 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 12/21/14 07:15 AM, Musician wrote: Um... not letting racism pass unchallenged?

If your entire counter-argument consists of "you're a racist", you're not challenging anything or anyone, you're simply insulting. I'm quite sure that Sadistic didn't imply that ALL black people were celebrating the murders, just that there were a bunch of black people on Twitter that were.

It should be noted that SadisticMonkey has gone on record in this forum as saying that black people are less intelligent than people of other races and more aggressive, so he's an ignorant racist. He probably does believe most/all black people celebrated these tragedies. If you don't believe me, I'll happily provide evidence for my claims. You should also take note, @LazyDrunk.@Musician is right in calling out SadisticMonkey as the racist that he is.

At 12/21/14 04:53 PM, lapis wrote:

At 12/21/14 04:32 PM, Light wrote: Those theories weren't rational, but what matters is whether the person(s) in question has reason.

I'm still not satisfied with the notion of 'having reason'. The psychotic in the example I mentioned may be capable of logical thought, i.e., he/she may be able to tell whether a line of moral reasoning is valid or invalid in the sense that the conclusion follows from the premises, it's just that some of his premises are delusional.

Premises and conclusions are concepts related to the field of logic, something that is very closely related to reason but not reason itself. One could say that the psychotic person chooses and believes in premises that only someone who's devoid of reason would believe in, really. Take, for example, this argument, which is an instance of "modus ponens" and is logically valid:

1. If everyone in the world is out to kill me, then I should try to kill them before they kill me.

2. Everyone in the world is out to kill me.
————————————————————
I should try to kill them before they kill me.

This is a logical argument. The conclusion follows from the premises because they force the conclusion to be true, logically speaking. This is a valid argument by definition. Look up "modus ponens" if you don't believe me.

However, this argument lacks soundness, meaning that the premises are not factually true in the real world. I suppose one can reason logically enough to make valid arguments, so to that extent they have some reason, but if a person actually believes what the premises state to be true, they're fucking psychotic and there's no getting around that. I don't think anyone would consider this person rational. Reason ≠ logic.

I'm not trying to nitpick or be pedantic for the sake of trolling you, but I feel your argument has a touch of circular reasoning, where mental illness is defined as the incapacity for rational thought, but where rational thought is implicitly defined as the kind of thought of which only sane people are capable.

Moral philosophy(And philosophy in general) isn't afraid to rely on other academic disciplines to define terms that are of importance to the field. In this case, the definition of mental illness for our purposes is whatever the field of psychiatry says it is. Mental illness isn't merely the incapacity for rational thought, but that incapacity is often the result of various mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, psychosis, and so on. So I don't think the argument is circular if you keep that in mind.

Still, I'm not afraid to admit that within ethics, this isn't the subject that I'm most knowledgeable about(That would be normative ethics, the study of what people should do and the moral theories that state what we should do in given situations), so I'm not doing as much justice to the subject of moral agency as I should and could be. I'm just relaying what I think about the subject and what most moral philosophers seem to think about it. I plan to take more classes in ethics before I graduate. :)

At 12/21/14 03:52 PM, lapis wrote:

At 12/21/14 03:31 PM, Light wrote: You're not getting it. Moral agency isn't contingent on making the right moral judgments, it's about being able to make moral judgments.

Consider someone suffering from a severe paranoid psychosis who needs to make a moral judgement on killing his neighbour. He would say it's the right thing to do, because he has no other options seeing as his neighbour is part of a government conspiracy that intends to kill him first and steal his organs. Clearly this person is capable of making a moral judgement, but the variables that he feeds into the decision making process are completely delusional. Surely you'll say that this person isn't capable of making reasoned judgements, and that the condition of rationality isn't satisfied, but then again, how rational (vs. delusional) are the Dolchstoss myth or Nazi race theory in which Jews and Russians are degenerate on the basis of mixture with other races but Arabs and Mongols are okay? So on this basis, would you say that the Nazis (or at least their followers) were rational agents or not?

Those theories weren't rational, but what matters is whether the person(s) in question has reason.

"The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence."

The above is one definition of reason. Believing in irrational notions doesn't mean that you are incapable of reason. Most of the Nazis(Except perhaps Hitler. He may have actually been mentally ill) believed racist nonsense, but they had the capacity to believe otherwise. They reasoned incorrectly, but by all accounts they had an undiminished capacity to reason, so they would be considered full moral agents. Certainly, they reasoned that the moral course of action was to kill as many Jews as they could, which is deplorable, but is indicative of their moral agency.

At 12/21/14 06:41 AM, lapis wrote:

At 12/21/14 01:39 AM, Light wrote: The definition of a moral agent, to quote Wikipedia, is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."

What does that mean in this context, though? It would make sense to focus on the case of the guy in New York, because that's how this discussion started in the other thread. Let's try to determine whether he is a moral agent. I imagine a test for his decision making capability would be to put him in a laboratory at some point (right before he committed the act or a month in advance?) and ask him to determine whether the act "shooting two police officers in revenge for the death of Eric Garner" is right or wrong, and if he chooses 'wrong' he would be a moral agent and if he chooses 'right' he would not be. Is that reasonable?

No. He's a moral agent if he's capable of making reasoned judgments about the rightness and wrongness of given actions. It should be emphasized here that rationality is a necessary condition for moral agency.

Could you also apply this to Hitler, and ask him to determine whether the act "definitely solving the Jewish question in Europe through industrial-scale genocide" is right or wrong, and if he chose 'wrong' he would be a moral agent and if he chose 'right' he would not be?

You're not getting it. Moral agency isn't contingent on making the right moral judgments, it's about being able to make moral judgments.

I mean, I can imagine this criterion of moral agency being enough to determine whether a lion or a hurricane is evil, but for humans I find it less clear.

Lions don't have nearly the same capacity for reason as humans are, so they're not moral agents. Hurricanes are natural events, and those don't possess reason either, so they're not moral agents.

Most humans have the ability to make moral judgments and contemplate them, so they're moral agents. Children generally aren't considered full moral agents because they're simply not intelligent enough to make complex moral judgments and contemplate about them at that; their sense of reason isn't developed enough for them to be held fully accountable for their actions. However, they can make moral judgments to a limited degree, based on their age and other factors, so they have limited moral agency, generally speaking. The same goes for the mentally ill, depending on their illness.

As a philosophy major whose favorite branch in the subject is ethics, I think I can contribute something to this discussion.

What you're talking about is a concern of moral agency—whether and to what extent we are morally responsible for our actions.

Most moral philosophers today agree that there are objective(but secular) moral principles that are universal and are binding on all moral agents. The definition of a moral agent, to quote Wikipedia, is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong." Moral agents are capable of learning the difference between right and wrong acts(On the presumption, of course, that universal moral principles exist) and to use that knowledge to do the right thing in a given situation. Of course, not all moral agents are good, but they are capable of it.

Under these conditions, it's absurd to consider a lion who kills and eats a person to be a moral agent and an evil one at that because the lion isn't capable of abstract thought and hence cannot distinguish between right and wrong. At the least, they can't be moral agents in the way normal human beings can be.

The mentally ill are usually not considered moral agents for the same reason(It depends on the mental illness, of course); they can't distinguish right from wrong and this fact can't be changed. They can't be held morally accountable for their actions. We wouldn't say that a severely mentally ill person who assaults another person is bad because such a statement implies that they could be good and can think about what the good thing to do in a given situation is. This fact is reflected in how we legally deal with the mentally ill; one who successfully avoids the death sentence or life in prison because of their insanity are declared "not guilty" in a court of law and are instead sent to insane asylums. They're not being punished because that implies that they can be held accountable for their actions, but they are being isolated from the rest of society. This is the morally appropriate response to destructive acts that are committed by the mentally ill that would be considered evil if they were committed by genuine moral agents.

So, Korriken, you are right that some people can be evil. The example you use of the KKK is a good one because you are right that we don't consider them mentally ill. They are moral agents who happen to be evil and what they did was evil.

If anyone wants to learn more about the subject of moral agency, there are some good books about the subject that can probably be found on Amazon or anywhere else where books are sold. Genuine moral philosophers write about this subject and other subjects in ethics all of the time. It makes for fascinating reading in my opinion.

At 12/12/14 07:48 PM, AKMan2 wrote: I think today in our country, there is "black can do no wrong" attitude when that is surely not the case. Black people contribute just as much to the racial divide as whites.

lmao

At 12/13/14 10:07 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 12/6/14 11:14 PM, Light wrote: Historians generally agree that James Buchanan was the worst president in U.S. history. He made little effort to prevent the civil war and was generally as incompetent as someone could be in that position. You should read his article on Wikipedia(Or elsewhere if you don't trust Wikipedia) for a more comprehensive explanation of his massive failures.

Wikipedia has an article on least popular Presidents and it says that the worst one was ranked as Andrew Johnson, which I agree with.

Another excellent candidate for crappiest president in U.S. history. I guess I was mistaken, but yeah, they're both in the top 3 for shittiest presidents.

At 12/8/14 01:38 AM, Alexborn wrote: what have you accomplished this year ng?

I got accepted into a top-rate university.

At 12/6/14 08:08 PM, coaliscool42 wrote:
Although that got me thinking, who was the worst president?

Historians generally agree that James Buchanan was the worst president in U.S. history. He made little effort to prevent the civil war and was generally as incompetent as someone could be in that position. You should read his article on Wikipedia(Or elsewhere if you don't trust Wikipedia) for a more comprehensive explanation of his massive failures.

At 12/1/14 12:58 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/1/14 12:05 PM, verycoolguy wrote: Does anyone else wonder if this case would have fallen under the radar had there been no lying witnesses? This recent situation with the St. Louis Rams is making me believe it might have been that way.

It would have fallen under the radar is Brown wasn't black and/or Wilson wasn't white.

I remember reading about several crimes which were FAR more heinous that got little if any national attention. It's not about the news, or the truth, it's all about the narrative that is being driven. Remember GIlbert Collar? Of course not, he was just an 18 year old unarmed white kid who was gunned down by a black cop. No media attention until after Brown was gunned down.

This is tragic, but considering that there hasn't been systematic discrimination by black police officers against white teenagers, it's a little disingenuous to say or imply that this is exactly the same.

This should be obvious, but Michael Brown's death has garnered so much attention because it reflects a trend in American society in which black people are disproportionately targeted by cops and disproportionately have their civil rights violated—as well as their right to life in many cases.

There are millions of black mothers and fathers who believe this to be the case and actually instruct their kids in near-painstaking detail how they should interact with police officers so that they don't get shot and killed. Can you honestly say that this kind of conversation is common in the homes of white families?

I'm not asking you to change your opinion right this instant, but I am asking you to empathize with black people all over the country who, by and large, feel unsafe whenever they have to interact with police officers. I'm asking you to at least try to understand why they feel this way and not dismiss their concerns so casually.

I guess white kids better be terrified of black officers looking to gun them down in the streets for nothing.... Pfft. I would hope no one buys into that rubbish. Collar, just like Brown was acting aggressively, and ate a bullet.

Regardless of the fact that blacks are more likely to have negative experiences with cops, I don't think you should automatically give Collar's killer the benefit of the doubt either.

Not only are American police officers more likely to kill blacks when confronting them, they generally seem more likely to use lethal force against any civilian in the U.S. than police officers in other 1st world countries. There's a racial problem here that can be documented by empirical research, but there's also a larger problem with how police officers are trained to handle risky situations, resorting to lethal force all too often. Those are both issues that must be addressed.

At 11/22/14 03:08 PM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote: You could have Mitochondrions, but you are so meta that you have metachorians.

Anyway, their used to be a Jedi Master around here, but I don't see much of him anymore. :(

@light

That Jedi Master guy did seem pretty cool and knowledgeable about Star Wars.

At 11/19/14 06:43 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/19/14 06:41 PM, Light wrote:

Yeah but private policing is a stupid idea and people who support that are pretty stupid. Look to @SadisticMonkey for an example.

You forgot to use any amount of logic and reasoning in your argument. In fact you have no argument your just flinging shit.

I didn't forget—you're just not worth the time.

At 11/19/14 06:36 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/19/14 06:30 PM, TNT wrote:

But hell, if someone really wants to try running a Private Police Force, then they should give it a shot in a major city like Chicago, New York, or Dallas for instance.

The problem is your Government loves to keep a monopoly on violence so as to keep the sheep in line and towing the line. Allowing a privatized Police force that the people CHOOSE to pay for is an extremely American ideal and is something you should all be interested in if you value true freedom.

Yeah but private policing is a stupid idea and people who support that are pretty stupid. Look to @SadisticMonkey for an example.

At 11/13/14 12:50 AM, Feoric wrote:

I don't even know what to say anymore.

"If we don’t know what we’re doing, the enemy certainly can’t anticipate our future actions."

It's as if the U.S. learned nothing from its history of aiding rebel movements during the Cold War. As expected when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, he's submitted himself to the general consensus in Washington D.C.

At 11/11/14 09:24 PM, Sekhem wrote:

At 11/11/14 09:16 PM, SneakyGameBoy wrote:

At 11/11/14 09:14 PM, Sekhem wrote: you are fucking pathetic

do you parents know how poorly you are doing in school

should i give them a call

Thank you for shitposting on my topic.

looks like you used a preposition inappropriately in this great reply

don't you agree that 'IN my topic' would make more sense

i think the users of reddit are nice to you because they realize that you're a little "special"

Shouldn't you use question marks to punctuate your questions?

Seems like something you should've learned in 1st grade.

I'm as liberal as they come, but honestly, with corporate money still being an inordinate influence in American politics, how effective do you think Warren would be? How do we know that she won't just be another Obama, someone who used a liberal facade to get elected? There are a lot of problems that a Warren presidential candidacy could/would run into that can't easily be addressed.

My school's Wi FI Internet is pretty good I suppose.

At 10/14/14 03:36 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/14/14 01:26 AM, Light wrote: If you think Africa is not as advanced as the more developed areas of the world because they're so lazy, you're pretty ignorant of economic history and the geographic, biological, and political factors that make it difficult, if not impossible for Africa to completely industrialize.

Biological factors? lol agreed

I was talking about high mortality rates caused by diseases in the african environment you racist idiot.

At 10/12/14 10:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

I have never cared for Africa. They have had so many opportunities to advance into the 17th Century in the past 100 year, but are too content living in extreme squalor.

If you think Africa is not as advanced as the more developed areas of the world because they're so lazy, you're pretty ignorant of economic history and the geographic, biological, and political factors that make it difficult, if not impossible for Africa to completely industrialize.

At 10/10/14 07:16 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
He was an academic fraud, a communist and a fundamentalist christian who believed that civil rights would lead to racial equality. What a dumbass lol.

Well, racists tend not to like Martin Luther King Jr., so your puerile remarks about about the man are sadly not surprising.

And before you claim that you're not a racist, you have said that black people are not as intelligent as people of other races are.

At 10/3/14 04:25 PM, SentForMe wrote:
Ethics are subjective and change from generation to generation. Basing your laws on sound ethical principles makes about as much sense as building your city on an earthquake fault. Everything is fine until there's an ethical earthquake and then all the laws have to be rewritten. If you're going to base your laws on anything, you might as well base them on pragmatism, since at least that doesn't change quite so often. You know, kind of like those in regard to reducing the effects of....CLIMATE CHANGE!

I really don't want to derail this thread by talking about ethics and its philosophical nature, but suffice it to say that I believe reason dictates that there are moral truths that all people should consider and live by. The nature of these truths aren't always apparent, but nonetheless, I think they exist.

Even if you think that ethics is subjective, it would be advisable to support laws that you think are grounded in what you think is right or otherwise reasonable.

At 10/3/14 02:56 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 10/3/14 09:28 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Not sure a former penal colony really has the moral high ground to oppose immigration...

Thankfully countries don't have to take concepts such as moral high ground into consideration when passing laws.

Shouldn't laws be predicated at least in part on sound ethical principles?

At 10/2/14 10:20 PM, Xenomit wrote: Sometimes I feel like the only person that fully enjoys new episodes

It was hilarious, do you lack a sense of humor or something? Do you just not like sarcastic, topical humor?

Did it ever occur to you that some people don't share your sense of humor? Get over yourself.