Levi's' Flat Eric has been added as a related post - related requested by EndAll.

New YT poster, VizzyMotion...

New poster here, levimoore, or Levi Moore, Chief Technology & Operations Officer, http://vizzymotion.com/about-us/, Founders, Board of Directors.

Finally, a little perspective. I feel like CNN was really just trying to emphasize that this isn't some bullshit punishment. These kids got their asses handed to them. They're fucked. I think this was in direct response to the understandable concerns that they wouldn't be.

This brings up a bigger question, which is "why don't more of these cases end this way?" My argument would be because the legal consequence of sexually related crime is too severe. It often has the effect of making the judge or jury uncomfortable levying that punishment in light of the specific facts of the case, and thus acquit the rapists to avoid destroying their life completely. It even probably dissuades many victims from levying accusations in the first place. If there were more graded punishments as there are in many other developed nations, we might find charges and convictions more common.

The registered sex offender thing is just one example. I remember that one case of a girl getting charged with distributing child pornography for sexting her boyfriend. Now she has to tell her neighbors she's a sex offender. It's all about politics, not justice.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tales of mere existence, stuff, Levi Yilmaz, AgentXQP' to 'tales of mere existence, stuff, Levni Yilmaz, AgentXQP' - edited by messenger

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tales of mere existence, stuff, Levi Yilmaz' to 'tales of mere existence, stuff, Levi Yilmaz, AgentXQP' - edited by messenger

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tales of mere existence, stuff' to 'tales of mere existence, stuff, Levi Yilmaz' - edited by messenger

How might gun ownership help a society? Well, it depends on the society doesn't it? Take Switzerland, for instance, which doesn't really have a standing army but inducts citizens into the militia and requires them to keep their firearms at home so they can mobilize quickly in the event of a crisis. I'd say there's a pretty strong benefit to their society (i.e. defense of the nation) in that case.

But I think @dystopianfuturetoday was probably asking about the benefits to a society in the U.S., where gun ownership is optional but also so prevalent So I'll focus on that area.

1) As has already been mentioned, from an economic standpoint, society benefits from the sale of guns and their related items through both taxes and levies and through the provision of jobs for those who produce guns, sell guns, or manage gun ranges. I have absolutely no idea exactly how big or small this benefit is in the U.S. but it certainly exists.

2) Armed citizens can (and do) stop "dangerous situations" from happening long before first responders have a chance to arrive and in some cases before they even have a chance to be notified. "Dangerous situations" here refers not only to crime but attacks by wild animals in rural areas.

3) Deterrence. Certain types of crime become much more risky to the professional criminal if you have to assume everyone is armed at all times.

Given these potential benefits to society, the question really then becomes do these benefits outweigh the costs to society? And also, what of the benefits to the individual? Certainly these must be weighed as well. CNN contributor David Frum wrote an interesting piece last year exploring these issues. You can find it here.

Sounds like they're headed in the direction Australia did in 1996, with a ban on semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. Though without a gun-buy back and destruction scheme, it would be pretty useless.

The Australian government raised $500m (through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy) for the scheme, which led to the destruction of 631,000 firearms (mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns).

Roughly 80% of Australians supported the action by the government; main opposers being sporting shooters and farmers.

“95% of the congressmen and Republican senators have sworn a written oath to someone called Grover Norquist and an organization called American For Tax Reform; that they will under no circumstances, and for no reason, raise taxes of any kind on anyone. And therefore they have taken an oath to an outside organization which is not supported by the U.S. Constitution – which gives Congress the right to levy taxes, to do the work of the people through the government –but this is a non governmental organization, not elected by anybody and supported by big money people who are making money by not having to pay taxes"

“And these people have signed a sworn oath that contradicts their oath of office. And therefore, in fact, they do have mental reservations, and they do have purpose of evasion and they are not sincerely taking their oath of office. And if they persist in that, and if they are held to that by this outside person who is not a member of the government, then they are, in fact, breaking their oath of office and they are not serving what they swore to serve the American people.”

“…they must, as a single body, reject their oath to Grover Norquist, renounce that oath in order to retake their oath of office; sincerely, without mental reservation, and without purpose of evasion; which is what they must do to be reinstated in our good graces, the people of the United States, of whom they are the employee.”

The kids' names are Isaac and Levi. Big surprise...

>> ^spawnflagger:

hooray more VGA Chess.
I actually watched this last week on RocketJump. I agree the writing could be better, but it's still fun.


Glad I'm not the only one who keeps hearing VGA Chess. And yeah, characters are a bit too annoying. The accent on Zach Levi seems just...unnecessary. I feel like he's going to be the next aging actor who had one somewhat popular show but won't do much after that but will cling to his past fame.

@bareboards2

Tone of voice on the internet is provided by the reader. If you hear an hysterical voice in your head when you read my words, rather than a rational one, then I urge you to go back and re-read what I write.

I didn't supply any tone of voice, I just saw something which I thought was wrong and I tried to correct.

I find it interesting that I have been accused of many things that I haven't actually said, but that doesn't strike you as unfair. I'm the one at fault. Still. Interesting. Hmmmm..... whatever could that mean?

I haven't accused you of saying anything nor commented on the fairness of anything levied at you. If you're referring to the end of my original comment, I thought it was pretty clear that was a prediction. I was mocking you for being "pleased with" yourself that you predicted that yogi went "all batshit stupid crazy". Any given yogi comment has like an 80% chance of being "batshit stupid crazy", Nostradamus.

Have I lost my shit in the past? Sure. Who hasn't around here? As that survey proved, this is a predominantly male environment and it took me awhile to understand that. That if I "lose my shit" it is a woman going all hysterical. So I have learned not to lose my shit anymore. But I am still accused of doing so.

So are you saying that men are incapable of treating women appropriately or that women are too dainty to hold their own in a male-majority environment? For someone who is so offended by sexism, you sure don't seem to mind dishing it out.

As you say, I "earned" this reputation -- fairly in some cases, unfairly in others. All I can do is move forward and continue to be rational in the moment. I can't change past perceptions.

You can't change the past but you can change perceptions, just don't expect to do it overnight and don't expect to do it by acting the same way that earned you that reputation. Plenty of us have had our reputations go to hell and back here. I look back at some of my comments from 4-5 years ago and can't believe some of the shit I said. I like to think I have a reasonably good reputation around here these days.

Chuck did this all the time. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO0R8eAurbw as an example. Even Zachari Levi, Chuck, went to the real Subway place to save his show!

Also, Catherine O'Hara, Ivan Reitman, Eugene Levy, et. al.>> ^siftbot:

Tags for this video have been changed from 'leave it to beaver, sctv, second city, sketch comedy, improv' to 'leave it to beaver, sctv, second city, sketch comedy, improv, John Candy' - edited by Trancecoach