*Promote

Because there are monsters out there who are dearer than kin.

>> ^bmacs27:
I feel like this is getting to be a tired argument. The real problem is that the only people to whom this is applicable knowledge to spread are, by definition, unreasonable people. You can't marginalize them if you keep talking about them.


I'm just happy that these types of videos are available to view. It's always been very easy to find religious wisdom, but not until recently has it been this easy to locate atheist information. If we properly separated religion from state and if we as a species didn't indoctrinate our kin from a young age we wouldn't need these videos. But, really, where else is someone going to gain this knowledge? A book? Who the fuck reads any more. These are practically PSAs for existence.

*NSFW because, although there's no cursing, there's a m-f*kin' woman screaming for half the duration of the f*in' video.

I know of no workplaces that would tolerate that coming from any computer speakers.

That is all.

Louis Prima was married to Gia Maione (his last), relatives of m'dad's side of the family through her cousin who married one of his borthers. When Prima made a trip to Texas, everyone was there. He hung at the homes of my kin whenever he was within' 200 miles of Port Arthur....so the stories go.

Man, Keely Smith was a piece a work...

QM has always been trollish. He(gic?) has always picked the smallest minority and stuck his heels in the ground. This is why the only times I see the stupid comments that are made by him are by others quoting.

Just a little bit more bait (iyu): You cannot get a reasonable sense of self actualization by playing Halo 3 in the underground (or any) chats during games. Then, posting to Videosift the rest of the time, with apparently no idea what "rtfa" means. If you're a troll then bravo, but if you do believe what you write you need to tune out for a bit and go see what the "evil side" does. It will open your eyes to new dimensions in thinking and may even give you frightening fleetingly glances of truth (1+1=2 type logic; not, "I don't like the music they play, or them using the term communism differently").

I lived in the type of atmosphere for most of my life that would truly make you close kin in some ways, but the only thing I ever really trusted was the simple truths: 1+1=2, science, information I could find with very little help, etc... If this isn't good enough for you then you will always be embattled, always making enemies, and you will never know peace nor happiness; something will always "feel" wrong.

If you mean what you say, I hope you lay back in humility and reconsider all that you know or have trusted. Build a new foundation.

If you are trolling may the lulz be with you. But, I said this before, "Man this shtick gets old...".

^ Don't forget to go through the time-portal to the past and have rednecks yelling at you for T'kin der jewbs!

I dunno quite what the etymology of the Olberman name is, but I've always liked to think it derives from Uberman, 'cause the dude f'kin rules.

>> ^bcglorf:

It is safe to say that, for all it matters, any mines laid by the Khmer Rouge were NOT western made.


So the particular mine in this video appears to be a PMN-2 which was made by the former USSR. But, it is the case that the Khmer Rouge used US made landmines (for example, the M16A1 and the M14-- NB: interesting article on how they work) This information can be easily gained with roughly 10 seconds of patience and a willingness to think before you act (something we in the US suck at). Hell, it is in the previous link I posted.


Landmines were the very least of anybody's crimes in Cambodia. Kissinger and his western kin have far more blood on their hands from carpet bombing.

My point is not that the Khmer Rouge were not assholes --they totally were. And so were we. We're all assholes. And until we go ahead and acknowledge that--we'll keep playing the finger pointing game and forget to pay attention to one of the greatest crimes continuing today. That people, right now, are suffering in Cambodia and other places like it and we're doing nothing to help.

The question should not be "who is responsible for making or placing these land mines" the question should be "who has a responsibility to help make a place where there are no land mines." Let the dead bury the dead--who will care for the living?

I believe the question was "who made the landmines" not "who laid the landmines" in which case the WEsterners would be among the culprits.

Again though, the specific ones this guy is clearing are stated to be those that he helped lay down as a child soldier for the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge, having a communist core, were only on the receiving end of western arms in the undesirable way. It is safe to say that, for all it matters, any mines laid by the Khmer Rouge were NOT western made.

My bigger point I was being 'anal' about wasn't really over who made the mines. It was about placing appropriate blame. Landmines were the very least of anybody's crimes in Cambodia. Kissinger and his western kin have far more blood on their hands from carpet bombing. The Khmer Rouge have more blood still for executing one of the worst genocides since the holocaust.

I don't want to detract from the west's guilt, but neither do I want to see the misconception that everything is the fault of America getting reinforced falsely. If you only blame the West for what's happened in Cambodia you are forgiving or ignoring the Khmer Rouge, and this guy would no doubt agree that's a very bad thing.

The problem with mentioning a moral compass is that you can look right to the animal kingdom, including insects, to see behavior like humans. Elephants have a great society together with only specific "sins" and aggressiveness; a sample:

Each elephant troop has its own home range, but territorial fights are rare even though ranges often overlap. While several hundred elephants may roam a similar range, small "kin groups" form between female relatives. The leader of each group is a respected old female with years of accumulated knowledge. This matriarch is the mother and grandmother of other members but sometimes allows her sisters and their offspring to join the group. Once a male reaches maturity, he is forced to leave. The entire group looks to the matriarch for guidance, particularly in the face of danger. Her actions, based on her superior knowledge, will determine whether the group flees or stands its ground. Young members learn from their elders how to find water and food during drought, when to begin travel and where to go, and many other survival skills. This knowledge is passed on from generation to generation.

Once a male elephant reaches sexual maturity at 12 years or older, the matriarch no longer tolerates him in the group. He will then live mostly alone or perhaps join a small, loosely-knit group of other males. Bull elephants seldom form long-term relationships with other males, but often one or two young males accompany an old bull, perhaps to learn from him. Bulls often spar with each other to establish a dominance hierarchy. Elephants have an excellent memory; once a social hierarchy is established, the same two elephants not only recognize each other, even after many years, but know which one is dominant. This way, they avoid fighting again to reestablish dominance. After about 25 years of age, male elephants experience annual periods of heightened sexuality called "musth," which lasts about a week in younger animals and perhaps three or four months as they near their 50s. During this time they aggressively search out females and challenge other bulls, sometimes even causing more dominant males to back down. Different bulls come into musth at different times of the year; however, two well-matched bulls in musth may fight to the death.

Modern humans were almost always raised to be social and learned how to cope with societal problems; sins became sins because that behavior elicited change and no matter how small the sin was it's is still an unknown to that society. Out of fear it becomes a sin or like everything else, evolution demanded it for the betterment of the species. Fear is our main motivation it lays at the core of almost all we do.

If you use evolution, society, and their mutual affiliation and synergistic properties you might find a "moral" compass that we can use without fear. Closest rule I've seen to show this is the golden rule.

/lengthy
//really!
///*edit: Yes, whatever we come up with will be imperfect.

That rider is f'kin lucky to keep it upright!

I hereby call upon all of the canadians of videosift!

Today, we march down and take america back for the commonwealth!

While they're all enjoying their watered down beer and "Am-ur-eh-kin" beef, we shall strike!

The nation will be completely wasted in their celebration, and be seeing double. We can use this to our advantage and have our army look twice as large as it actually is.

Depending on the level of their drunken stupor, we may be able to pretend we have a form of weapon of mass destruction if we all yell "BOOM" Loud enough, and at the same time.

We'll catch them off-guard and take new york first, and write graffiti on the statue of liberty if someone can ask to borrow a boat. (Remember, they're drunk, odds are they won't mind.)

We will then move across the east coast, taking them individually until we get down to texas.. They can somewhat hold their beer down there and have guns, we should probably just leave them the fuck alone.

After we've taken the entire east coast, We'll probably be quite tired and will have lost track of our goal, so I say we just detour to Disneyland and call it a day.

After we're through at disneyland, odds are they'll have taken notice, and the only way out will be to Canoe across the Atlantic, and into our British motherland, who will then hopefully protect us until everything back in north america has cooled down.

Happy 4th, ya bunch of rednecks.

Westy and gwiz665, you both make a good point. What you're speaking of could be called "emotional economy". It's the idea that we only place emotional investment in those close to us - those whom we expect will in return invest emotionally in us. This is the natural way of human civilization, and it is an important psychological defense mechanism. For instance, as i write this, someone somewhere in the world just died. If all people could feel the death of all other people (or creatures in general), we would all be overwhelmed by the constant flood of pain and emotion.

However, you fail to understand the nature of the situation. And while it is important to have a rational outlook on the subject of celebrities, it is also important to understand this next concept:

When you kill an animal for food (or buy a packaged, pre-killed, animal product) it is healthy to thank that animal for giving its life to sustain your own. Too many people thank God, or some other thing, but thanking the animal - so that you understand your own place in the natural order - is the true purpose of saying grace before eating.

Without that thanks, and without the understanding that comes with genuine gratitude for the sacrifice of another life for your own, a person begins to devalue the life of the creature they killed. The devaluation continues and grows in its own way, until eventually that person (and all people) come to believe themselves to be above less intelligent forms of life. Understand: Just because humans are higher on the food chain doesn't mean you are any more significant than a deer - or a bee. Or even a virus.

It is not possible to understand the meaning of this overnight. It is a kind of insight that must grow in you until the meaning becomes clear on its own. It is the same as when your parents push you to say "please" and "thank you" and to show respect in general and have good manners. As a very young child, you don't understand the necessity. But as you grow older and gain experience with other people and social situations, you begin to understand that the words "please", "thank you", "excuse me", "i'm sorry", and so on, have a deeper purpose that goes beyond mere manners.

And so it is with emotional expression. People form attachments to artists and performers. These attachments are, in truth, almost always made to the image that the artist is projecting of him- or herself. But even that projected image is a part of the person. Just as importantly however, it should be understood that celebrities /become/ celebrities not just because of the link between their image and their fans, but also because of the links between people who share a love or interest in what that famous person is doing. People tend to congregate around ideas (and ideals). That's why going to church is so popular. People could worship in the privacy of their own homes, yet many choose to go to a church (or temple, etc). Why? Because of the social aspect. Because of the shared links, not just between the congregation and the topic at hand, but also between all the people present! It is this way with all things.

Understand further that a person's emotional investment itself is so often times tied directly to some event in their life. Perhaps someone experienced her first kiss while Elvis was playing on the radio in the background. Perhaps a close family member died 20 or 30 years ago, and at that time, that person heard a song that echoed the same feelings he or she was feeling at that moment. There was a sense that "Yes, someone else out there /knows/ what i'm going through. Their lyrics comfort me. Their melody is a catharsis of my very soul." There's a gratitude there. And now that the musician has died, it is as if the person has lost a piece of themselves.

It may not seem rational, but it is most certainly logical.

Understand finally that this emotional connection to a person's outward persona is a fine and necessary substitution for having a direct emotional connection to them. (Regardless of whether they're a so-called "celebrity" or not.) The problem isn't that we have too much of that, it's that we don't have enough of it going around to more people. And what we do have is too often abused by unscrupulous journalism (ie: "The Media"). Perhaps you would find it interesting to know that i personally have more emotional resonance with Tori Amos than i do with any one of my blood kin. She and i don't know each other personally, but her actions (her music) have helped me through situations that none of them would or could have (and in fact, some of those situations were caused by them).

There's so much more that could be said on this subject, though i will simply close with this: All things in moderation. Balance.

>> ^honkeytonk73:
The so-called Smug-Bastard sense, is a sense used to detect those of Demon-kin.....

LOL!

>> ^bluecliff:
The perception of smug bastards is also a sense. I get it mostly when I hear Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris.


The hypocrisy is delicious, *nom-nom-nom-nom*

The so-called Smug-Bastard sense, is a sense used to detect those of Demon-kin. The red skinned cloven-hoofed type that invade our plane of existence and try to tempt and turn us into kindling for the big red horned dude under the ground.

All those non-believing non-religious heathen bastards are going to burn in the everlasting flames of hell for all eternity. While... I.. a believer... a TRUE(tm) UNSMUG(tm)believer of the only true faith out of many thousands and thousands throughout human history will not suffer such a fate.

I will fly up into the magical sky heaven and live with winged sky fairies with bird wings, basking in the sun of my bearded white anglo-saxon god.

Now, on the other hand if they would just repent, give in, and profess total and complete belief in the ultiate fairytale known as the Bible.. literally, and unquestioningly supporting EVERY word in the Bible 100% as absolute truth. Then.. and only then would I consider them an equal. An equal under heaven.

I am not smug in the least. I am simply a servant of God. Praised and GLORY to him. God Bless the USA, for God prefers US over them.