search results matching tag: 13 years old

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.005 seconds

    Videos (61)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (9)     Comments (205)   

America's Got Talent 2017 Darci Lynne Finals Full Clip S12E2

Buck says...

First I swear I'm not stalking you. I was going to write off your comments as trollish or whatever. A video unrelated later, a picture of britney spears (hey she's hot) , and I find this comment discussing Britts talent.

": newtboy: While I do get your point, I think perhaps you miss the point that a real live singing/playing concert is different from a 'pop star concert' (although I do think they should be billed as 'pop star performances', not 'concerts').
If I go to the opera, I am expecting to hear people sing live while performing a play.
If I go to a 'concert', I expect to see a singer or band singing or playing live, but not doing much else (old Van Halen and GWAR being the exceptions).
If I go to a pop star performance, I usually expect to see flashing lights, smoke, sparks, special effects, stunts, and crazy dancing while you hear a track of the performer.
It's not possible to do the stage performance AND sing competently at the same time. If I expect to see dancing, I should not expect the dancer to also sing live, that's not realistic to me."

But this 13 year old, with the pressure she is under singing as sweet as she does, while being humourous at the same time using talent from a forgotten time of family entertaining. What do you expect from this show? I've literally never watched an episode, saw this and was amazed, and here you are all high and mighty on her. wtf?

newtboy said:

I hate ventriloquists, I don't think it's a talent, and the profession should have died with Madame. Darci barely counts as one. I see her lips and neck move every time she speaks through her unnaturally clenched open mouth...."stand there with your mouth closed like you always do"...really?! She can't, her mouth is open the whole time. She won for being a cute white girl playing with dolls, imo.
I hate when kids join adult talent competitions and get more points for "cute" than adults get for actual talent.

Her winning was the death nail for AGT for me. So much amazing talent discarded for .....this. I'm done with them, have fun being a kid's talent show....the kind even parents avoid like the plague.

Learning about nuclear power with the commander-in-chief

RFlagg says...

No Mr Trump (RE: 0:52)... if you were a Liberal Democrat, nobody on the left would be calling you a smart man, or even a good man. You are the very picture of a fucking idiot. You could have been left of Bernie, and your narcissism would have made me sick. You are a near illiterate moron, and this wouldn't be a problem if you just kept to reality TV that appeals to other idiots, or the immorality of ripping off your contractors, but you ran, and run, to be the President of the United States, made us the laughing stock of the world. The media gives you a hard time, not because you are conservative, or because they lie, or because of some liberal agenda, they give you a hard time because of your banal idiocy, the fact YOU lie, that you constantly contradict yourself, that your people have to contradict you. that you can't seem to understand even basic concepts my 13 year old could grasp with far greater ease than you. Don't worry though, the minority part of the population who voted for you, will have faith in you no matter what, you could come out and say you did conspire with the Putin to win the election, and none of them would care, because you aren't Clinton, and they'd just see it as saving America in the end, such is the power of the brainwash on the far right... hell, I'd doubt the GOP itself would have enough balls to do anything about it other than say it was bad for you to do. Anyhow, you fucking moron, you massive failure of a human, you waste of star-stuff, nobody on the left would say you were smart, or appreciate you at all, we'd all see you for the looser you are, it isn't your politics that causes it, it's because of facts. Of course I realize that there are some big words here, and you can't read it, but I'm sure one of your actually smart, but greedy people, can help parse it for you, and stroke your ego about how it was an unfair attack and yada yada yada... and you and your followers would just say I'm brainwashed by the evil liberal media like NPR, but if you'd learn to vet things... which I know is well beyond your imbecile mind, one learns to see where the truth lies... Hell, you pompous buffoon, even when I was a far right, evangelical Christian, and pushing for strong Republican ties, I'd still have thought you to be the biggest idiots to ever hold the office.

If you touch me again...I'll kill ya

AeroMechanical says...

You know, I remember thinking this movie was really good when it came out (I was probably 13 or 14). I tried watching it again a few years ago and it is absolutely not good at all. I do believe it was at the beginning of a shift in the genre towards more gruesome violence--sort of post Robobocop--though, which might explain why the 13 year old me thought it was great, so maybe it has some value as a film in that sense.

Michael Moore perfectly encapsulated why Trump won

newtboy says...

If only I agreed with you....but sadly these things are NOT off the table, clearly. In fact, it's the minority rights being infringed upon that may have determined this election, so to say they are settled is simply wrong.
They SHOULD be settled, and among educated people they are, but the state of education in this country is pretty sad, as you can see from the results of this election. Trump won among the uneducated, and they are the majority.

What should terrify people is a statement he made last week, that" won't it be great when we are one nation, under ONE god", implying he plans on somehow making us monotheistic as a nation.

The electoral college is set up for EXACTLY this eventuality....that a smarmy snake oil salesman might dupe the uneducated masses into electing someone dangerous, so we are supposed to have a firewall of educated thinkers that, no matter what the vote, can elect any candidate they wish. Unfortunately, they have never done that, and now seem to have forgotten that elections like this are the sole reason we have an electoral college, not a direct democracy.

I wonder what happens when Trump gives his deposition about raping the 13 year old girl in the early 90's in December....if he admits to raping her, or is found to be guilty of it, does he still get sworn in, or do we have President Pierce? Can someone please accuse him of multiple felonies and get him convicted quickly? That seems to be our only hope, and President Pierce doesn't sound much better...only slightly more sane.

ChaosEngine said:

Women's rights, minority rights, LGBTQ rights, climate change... these things are not up for discussion or compromise. They are done, settled and off the fucking table. If you have a problem with that, you're wrong.

And while I'm no fan of religion, I'm even less of a fan of the idea of discriminating against people based solely on their religion. (Religion is not an excuse either; if someone does something stupid and/or evil in the name of your religion, it doesn't get you a free pass, but that's another story).

Bottom line: this isn't some "we're all the same deep down scenario".

If this year has shown anything, it's that we need protection from idiots being allowed to vote.

John Oliver - Johnny Strong

spawnflagger jokingly says...

gotta call bullshit on Johnny Strong #1.
Let's assume he's 8-13 years old, that puts this on or before 1990. Laser Pointers in the 1980s were expensive and large. Only in mid 90s did they become smaller and cheaper, and probably even harder to order in the UK.
So unless Johnny Strong was 16 and still wearing onesie pajamas, this comic just came from a staff writer who likes playing with cats using laser pointers (who doesn't?)

Who Pays on a First Date?

bareboards2 says...

That thing about "best friend"? I have been saying that EXACT THING for years.

And not just about who pays for a date. It is for all aspects of the relationship. If I wouldn't put up with certain crap from a friend, why would I from a fella?

Side note -- never have I been in an abusive relationship. I wonder why that is?

But I know I am wired differently.

Long before feminism was a big important concept to me, I went on my first date with a young man I didn't know well.

I was 13 years old, in 1967. We went to a matinee at the local movie theater. Fifty cents a ticket.

I remember standing behind him in line, as he awkwardly paid, and I awkwardly didn't know what to do or say.

And my main thought was -- I have a job. I can afford my own ticket. (I cleaned test tubes in the junior high science lab. I still have sense memories of moldy agar in a petri dish.)

I never got over that. I still feel that way. Go ahead and treat me to something special that you can afford. Next time, it'll be my turn to pick the activity and I'll pick something I can afford.

I was lousy at dating. But I was clear about the basic equality necessary in order to respectful to both of us.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Abortion Laws

Mordhaus says...

Bob, I'm unsure how you can reach the decision that preventing a 13 year old rape victim from terminating an unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment.

Let's say that you or I was raped by a person with HIV and contracted the disease. To mimic the abortion situation, let's also say that there was a large segment of society that, for religious or cultural reasons, felt that treatment of HIV should not be allowed. Would you not feel that you were being punished unfairly by not being allowed treatment for something you had no control over?

In any case, these laws will not stand in the end. They are simply new versions of Jim Crow Laws to prevent what a small segment of society doesn't like. The sad thing is that a lot of young girls and women will be traumatized or die because of them. Religious people need to stop trying to make laws to force people to follow their tenets.

bobknight33 said:

Who fights for the unborn? Not the left.

I do agree that these new hindrances are fairly messed up but that is what is available to lawmakers.

There should be a few instances that abortion is allowed and these should be done at the hospital at same day surgery clinics where minor procedures are preformed.

AS fat as the 13 yr old she is not being punished. Where are the cops arresting the rapist? PPH are obligated to report that.
The baby’s heart will start beating during the fifth week. The heart is too small to generate enough sound waves to be audible, even when amplified by the use of medical equipment in your doctor's office. However by the 6th week the beats can be measured.


Its odd if I kill a pregnant woman I get charged with 2 counts of murder. If the woman kills the fetus no problem with that.

7 Absurd Uses of DLC that Will Make Your Blood Boil

JustSaying says...

I just wait until they throw in the DLC for free in GotY packages or it becomes really cheap in some sale. Most of the time I don't care about the DLC anyways as it's quite often MP stuff (Call Of Duty for example, never bought a single piece of DLC for those). I don't like 13 year old sexist racists, so I do SP only.
If it's worthwhile stuff (like the Skyrim add-ons or the extra Mortal Kombat characters), DLC is fine but if it's shit like horse armour or an extra pistol nobody needs, I'll ignore it.
I only get mad when the publisher fuck with the customers. The only reason I forgave Square Enix the Missing Link DLC fuckery is because it was really great.

Youdiejoe's vid of the 2009 SoCal siftup

canadian man faces jail for disagreeing with a feminist

Lawdeedaw says...

A man posted rap lyrics of killing his wife after a break up. She said fuck, he is threatening. Supreme court laughed, ex-husband laughed, wife cried. So to answer your question. Probably not liable for slander. Kind of like how pols can call Obama Muslim, or Hilary a whore.

Edit Added later:

Oh, and that comment pedophile comment could be easily construed as satire, which is protected. He would have to risk a lot of money to succeed...

Oh, and more. The content could be argued that it was in good faith because someone else called him it and it was reasonably believable. (That a 13 year old girl called him out on sexual harassment.) That the source was unverifiable is inconsequential. Even when they found out the woman was over age, they have no obligation for wasting time on the issue through apologies.

Blame the law, but yeah, there is that.

newtboy said:

Isn't there actually a 'game' where you choose the picture and 'beat it up'?

It's pretty funny that they get upset at an 'internet bully', so they become a gang of internet bullies to...well...I'm not sure...get theirs? Certainly not to stop internet bullying...they're using it as a main tactic.

Can't they be sued for publicly calling him a pedophile? Do they really accuse people of being pedophiles so often that they can't remember doing it?

I have to think there's something missing here....like what he actually posted that he's being charged with. Did he make threats? Unfortunately, time and time again this kind of opinion piece leaves out the most important pieces of information. I need to see the tweet that rose to the level of charging him before I form an opinion.

It sure seems like calling him a pedophile publicly meets the criminal standard, why isn't she up on charges?

Star Wars Battlefront Trailer

00Scud00 says...

Ah, sweet childhood memories of flashlight lightsaber fights, Star Wars toys and Halloween costumes, now cut to you playing Battlefront and having some 13 year old brat screaming obscenities in your ear that would make a demon blanch.

Don't Stay In School

Asmo says...

If you did high school bio, think about what you covered that has any sort of influence on medicine... =)

Frog or rat dissection? Covered that in Bio 101 in the first year of my Applied Chemistry degree (and yes, you can give a rat a Columbian necktie... . Photosynthesis? Mating?

Yeah, Bio was pretty much introducing you to broad concepts and it's nothing that doesn't get rehashed in the first 6 months of Uni via intro subjects. I think of it more as a way to dip the toe in the pool and see if the subject matter excites you enough to try and turn it in to a career.

eg. At 40 now (and having forgotten my chem degree and gone in to IT as a sys admin after working as a chef, bouncer etc), I could go back to uni barely remembering anything about chemistry and start from scratch and be none the worse for it. The keystones you talk about are literacy and numeracy, that's about it. And they are learned in primary school.

Oh sure, it helps if you can do some higher math, but English lit? Physics? Drama? Almost nothing you do at high school has any real defining affect on most of what you do as an adult. It's more like a sampler platter, and of course a way of grading students (on a curve of course, we can't have people's scores based on their own merit) to distinguish what tertiary studies they should be eligible for.

School should be about igniting curiousity as much as practical skills for life. I did "Home Economics" (ie. cooking/sewing/budgets etc) and typing (on real mechanical typewriters no less) as opposed to wood/metal shop ( I was awful at shop). My home ec teacher was always interested in making different food, so we tried some pretty out there things in grade 8 (~13 years old), and I've always been interested in cooking since. Similarly, learning to touch type has made my life radically simpler, particularly in IT (try writing a 40 page instruction manual hunting and pecking).

Most of the high school grads we see as cadets or trainees are essentially useless and have to be taught from scratch anyway. Most of the codified BS we have these days doesn't prepare kids for life, doesn't encourage critical thinking or creativity, it a self justification to keep schools open.

Jinx said:

I disagree. You can't show up at Uni at 18 expecting to do medicine without having spent the preceding years learning biology, and probably maths as well. Of course, it's true that this knowledge is eventually eclipsed, but I don't think you can look at the cap stone and dismiss all the stones at the bottom as unnecessary.

Most Honest Political Ad Ever!

Most Honest Political Ad Ever!

Cops Owned By Legal Gun Owner

newtboy says...

Something does not have to be illegal for it to be suspicious. If you are found to be carrying a hammer and a towel down a residential street at night, you will be stopped and checked out to be sure you aren't using them to steal from cars or homes. That doesn't make hammers illegal, it makes someone carrying one at night suspicious.
A gun on your hip on a public street is more suspicious than a hammer, and at the least should give the officer the ability to stop and identify the person carrying it. In most jurisdictions, you must identify yourself to an officer when asked, (but nothing more) and they can 'hold' you until your identity is known.
As mentioned before, he could be a felon, therefore committing another felony by carrying a gun...therefore it's legally suspicious. Or you might be a known suspect in another crime...suspicious. Or you might be about to use that gun for a crime...suspicious. Or you might be selling crack and using the visible gun as a deterrent other crack dealers....also suspicious. So yes, anyone intentionally visibly carrying a gun on main street (where there's no need for a gun to protect yourself from anything) is suspicious, just as anyone carrying 15 legal knives would be, or someone with a samurai sword, or handcuffs, a blindfold, and a stun gun might be...none of them illegal but totally suspicious.
His actions were suspicious, more so when he won't identify himself. The officer could have said he 'met the description of a suspect at large', which he (and nearly everyone else on earth) does, there's lots of suspects at large of every description, and as I understand it he could have held him until they identified him. (really I would see that as harassment, but as I understand the law it would be allowed, I was held for 'meeting the description' of a vandal once, and the person eventually arrested turned out to be a 25 year old 6 foot black man, while at the time I was a 13 year old, 5 foot tall white boy).
Yes, people who act in a way that 'freaks normal people out' will likely be stopped and inspected if they're reported. We have all tacitly agreed to that long ago.

silvercord said:

My guess is this: It's not that this was a suspicious person. It's that this was a person with a gun. And in someone's mind that made the guy suspicious. (In actuality, for many people, anybody with a gun becomes suspicious.) It isn't really the person. It's the gun. Somebody freaked out because someone else had a gun. It's understandable, but it is also not against the law, apparently, where the video was shot. Are we going to going to agree to stop anyone who is conducting themselves in a legal manner because someone else freaks out over it?



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon