It's not that bad. I'm a total wimp with these things, and it doesn't look as if he hurt himself. Looks like a ski accident.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
I don't have a big problem with the death issue itself (if it matters), but I do have a problem with more graphic scenes. For instance, watching a plane crash doesn't "bother" me even knowing that people died in the incident (though I feel sadness for them). However, I have a feeling that the motorcycle video would bother me, so I haven't watched it.

That also extends to "severe injury" videos. I kinda wish I hadn't watched the rope swing leg-snap video, or possibly even the guy that got shot in the eye with a paintball... those do "bother" me. I kinda wish there was a "severe graphic injury" warning, but what is "graphic" is also opinion.

I'll refrain from commenting on what should be allowed... I don't feel it is my place. Everyone is bothered by different things, and I'd be fine with some sort of warning that let me skip those videos by choice. The problem is that there are no well-defined lines with these issues, no matter how well the guidelines are written.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic

I donno if you agree w/ me or not, but I appreciate your comments. Thank you and Cheers!

LOL. Your comment was insightful. And almost made me throw up.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
This is why government-funded healthcare may be a bad idea. Imagine what their medical bills will be like in the not-too-distant future. Maybe we can tax junk food to pay for it. =)


There is still worse though. I went to a state fair and noticed vendors selling deep-fried cheeseburgers. They also had "fried Pepsi", which were funnel cakes where the water in the batter mixture had been replaced with Pepsi syrup.

you make a good point that rights (social contracts) only exist, in a practical sense, when they are enforced.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic

I agree with everything you just said. If what you say is indeed true, isn't the argument about gay laws, rather than gay rights? Rights don't change from country to country, or time to time, only laws do. Gays don't want new rights, as you stated, they want new laws. Given that, which sounds easier to convince someone of:

1. A new law which permits gay marriage between consenting individuals.
2. A new law which permits marriage between all consenting individuals.

I'm not gay, so why should I care about, or support #1? I can already get married, so why should I care a new law permitting marriage? You might be able to convince some that it is a "good" cause, but most people will be apathetic because it doesn't affect them--and many will down right resent it because it explicitly goes against their beliefs.

Now try to round up support for #2, if there are no laws currently in place about marriage, it would be pretty easy to find support, wouldn't it? If you ask me the same question about #2, I would absolutely support your new law. I want to get married, so I will support a law which permits me to marry. #2 finds universal support because it finds universal common ground.

Imagine a situation where there are a dozen laws, each permitting a different group to get married. With each new group added, it actually becomes harder for new groups to gain rights because there are less people left with any reason to support it. When you already have something, you care a lot less about getting it...even if it means that others will get it too.

Selfish? Maybe, but isn't a law which only gives "rights" to one specific group selfish? The civil rights movement was extremely selfish. It was not "progress" save for one particular group. Blacks gained the right to marry whites, but what about gays? Why didn't black people care about gays getting married?

If, when granting blacks the legal ability to marry whites, we had phrased the law as in #2, blacks would have had their right to marry just the same--and so would the gays, and every other persecuted group for that matter. The problem of "Gay marriage" would have been solved before anyone ever knew it existed.

If humans really are equal, why should the words "gay, black, white, male, female" or any other group description ever exist in any law? Why should we ever discuss laws or rights with these terms? You're either human or your not, what difference does anything else make?

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:

i think humans already have the right to marry the person they love, though. why put people into groups if you don't have to? what "gay rights" exist that a heterosexual person doesn't have?


In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
>> ^imstellar28:
what rights do gay people need, that humans don't already have?

Perhaps the right to marry the person they love, for example.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
Is that Joe Rogan at 3:43?

Yep it is..

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.