In reply to this comment by Jinx:
slight typo in the title there bro. Et not Est :

I had a great English teacher who taught these poems excellently. I always found "Disabled" especially haunting and sad.

Thanks for the typo check! I am a sis not a bro by the way What I find the saddest thing is Wilfred Owen's demise, what horrible timing! Although it seemed he didn't really want to live through the guilt anyway, but so sad this life of war and killing was thrust upon him as so many others. Makes me sick!

Of all of the awful things I've watched online tonight, I think this made me the saddest. Now I will go to bed.

That is because they are timed to only work every so many tries - How to Beat the Crane Game

>> ^Auger8:

Right at least the claw seemed to be a good one most of them set the tension on the claw so low there's no way in hell it would pick up anything in the machine no matter how hard you try or how good you are.
>> ^Payback:
It looks pretty happy to me. Ones around here are complete assholes.

Right at least the claw seemed to be a good one most of them set the tension on the claw so low there's no way in hell it would pick up anything in the machine no matter how hard you try or how good you are.
>> ^Payback:

It looks pretty happy to me. Ones around here are complete assholes.

You are only proving my point that we live in a blatantly sexist world.

It is one of the saddest things in my life that more than 40 years after we as women (and enlightened men) started having the conversation about how denigrating it is for full grown women to be referred as girls -- and to simper coyly and call ourselves girls -- that it is even worse now than it ever was.

And here you show up, making fun of a serious topic as if you have the least notion of what the heck you are talking about.

How often do you hear males over age 17-19 as being referred to as "boys"?

Take a moment as you move through the world and give it some attention. Women are girls, men are guys or men or dudes. See how often it happens that women are called ONLY girls. Maybe consider changing your language and use the word "woman" once in a while and see how your world view shifts.

That is, if you are open to learning something. If you have an open mind. If you don't think that you have achieved perfection in your thinking process and know absolutely everything there is to know is this vast world.

If you tell me that you routinely refer to grown men as "boys" and I'll back off on you personally. Some people do. That's great, I have no beef with them.

But if you aren't "equal" in your use of language, then yes, you and your female friends are blatantly sexist, and unconsciously so.

I first had this conversation in 1974. At that time, it wasn't uncommon to call a black man a boy -- getting rarer, but it wasn't uncommon. Yet here we are, calling grown women "girls."

Sad, sad, sad, sad.

And you "lol."

Even sadder.

The video, by the way, has a great payoff at the end of a rambling conversation.

By the way, I just looked up and saw #28 on the list of videos expiring soon. "Anal Cunt 'I respect your feelings as Woman.' " Another thing that saddens me. Coon, nigger, spook, jiggabo -- all verboten. But Cunt? Used now more than ever.

Saddens me.






>> ^packo:

didn't watch the vid, didn't really care... the only thing that caught my interest was that calling women "girls" is blatant sexism... that made me laugh
primarily because more women i know refer to themselves in different ways as "girls" than guys refer to them
is this a new "n word"? lol

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video America's Saddest Home Videos. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

I didnt say everything was right what critics say. Thats science. However, you can start by "debunking those 450+ studies one by one, because that article you linked didnt debunk one of them but instead just tried to personally discredit 3 people who they think are too dangerous to their cause.

How about you start by debunking the thousands of studies supporting anthropogenic climate change? More importantly, what makes you think those 450+ studies are more reliable than the pro-climate change studies? Usually, when I see a debate with a vast majority of scientists on one side and a tiny minority on the other, I believe the majority. This isn't a perfect heuristic, but it's a pretty good one. Do you have any good reason to believe the heuristic fails in this instance? What is it that has convinced you the majority is wrong?

Its very easy to say what you are saying. Just like creationists. You cant debunk it. "God told me so, prove me wrong!".

What? This is the stupidest analogy ever. Saying "Look at all this peer reviewed scientific research" is somehow equivalent to "God told me so"?

And studies that try to explain this partly (Svensmarks), and thus attack the "consensus" of the corrupt, get dismissed like its some atheist in a church trying to explain how resurrection is impossible.

This is only true if atheists in church are usually dismissed using careful peer-reviewed scientific research, along the lines of this or this.

There are enough facts plus satellite data, but as long as people like you prefer to get their money taken from them (thats what this is all about, if you still havent noticed), there is nothing objective science can do about it. You have no idea how many billions the global warming market is already. Not only the "scientists" that get paid for every mention of AGW in their studies and articles by the IPCC, but also normal people who make a living by selling stuff that is supposed to decrease CO2 emissions and levels.

And of course there's no money at all to be made in debunking climate change. Dude, the oil industry pumps millions of dollars into research that criticizes the consensus. After the last IPCC report came out, the American Enterprise Institute (funded by Exxon) offered $10,000 to anyone who published an article criticizing the report. If you think money is skewing incentives on the pro-AGW side, why don't you apply the same standards to the denialist side?

Science is falsifiable, but people like you just are saying the Al Gore bullshit "The debate is over" and are bringing old and already debunked arguments (even not used anymore by IPCC).

Care to point out where ChaosEngine made an old and already debunked argument? And just because science is falsifiable doesn't mean that science can never be settled on an issue. The debate about the chemical composition of the sun is over. That doesn't mean that those claims are not falsifiable.

I didnt even know theres actually a site like this that promotes discrimination of scientists by putting their own bullshit on it and claiming their are wrong and calling them childish names like Christy Crocks. Reminds me of those republican kids that invent stuff like "libtard" or "obamallama". Very objective and scientific. It gets sadder and sadder each day.

I know. Very sad. Let me play you the world's saddest song on the world's tiniest violin. Especially after you called ChaosEngine ignorant and stupid and then complained about how sad rhetoric like "Christy Crocks" is.

That you think climate science is a science that is even known well by humankind and thus can be easily proven, proves alone that you dont have a clue... Oh and btw, we are experiencing a cooling now it and will last until about 2020 to 2040. Lets see what new "scientific facts" will pop up to support your religious opinion until then.

Climate science is not a science that is known well be humankind, but it is apparently known well by coolhund-kind. Please tell us how you came up with this forecast, and why you think it is more reliable than the forecasts of, you know, actual experts.

The IPCC is an organization, that has no need to exist, if there is no AGW.

True, but irrelevant, since there is AGW.

You want to keep your job, or you want to get a better paid job... you just have to get rid of a few minor ideologies and then you have a good life for the rest of your life.

OK, so the thousands of climate scientists who claim to believe in AGW are lying to keep their jobs. Confusingly, a number of global warming skeptics are able to keep their jobs without pretending to believe in AGW. Someone needs to figure out how they managed to beat the corrupt system. Maybe they have compromising pictures of Al Gore?

Oh and btw, I think America is very easy to fool with things like this. Take the biofuel for example. It is nowhere near being actual "biofuel". It actually harms our eco-system. Palm oil, clearing of the rain forest to make space for more plantations, high food prices, waste of water, etc come to mind. Other countries like Germany are more skeptical about things like this and have proven once again, that they are right, even though your country (and many other who benefit from it) are still claiming there is also a "consensus" on this matter. How ironic.

What a pointless digression. America is not the only country in the world where scientists believe in AGW. The national science academy in Germany, your paragon for a skeptical country, has also endorsed the IPCC report. So whether or not Americans are easy to fool is completely irrelevant here. Incidentally, 59% of German people believe that global warming is due to human activity. Only 49% of Americans believe this. So maybe you're right -- Americans are easy to fool. You're just wrong about who's fooling them.

This is the saddest video I've seen this year

Your video, The Saddest Kitten Of All Time, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 55 Badge!

Well, you win the award for the saddest/most depressing thing I've seen all day.

>> ^Phreezdryd:

The issue should be why are children having their own children before even finishing high school? How does a child working toward being a responsible adult have time to also be a full time parent? They have to lean heavily on relatives, friends, and probably government programs to get by. Children maybe end up getting treated like baggage instead of a loved, planned for part of life. Is any of this good or fair?
Rinse and repeat for generations. I think society as a whole pays for this, and not just with tax dollars. Kids need real education about real life, instead of the nonsense from the squeamish and the holier than thou.


the assumption that any two parents can raise a family completely alone without having to rely heavily on relatives, friends, and sometimes even government programs to get by is ridiculous. human beings are HERD animals. it takes an entire HERD to raise a family. furthermore, children from any type of home are equally at risk to be born to parents who often, sometimes, occasionally or all the time treat them like baggage instead of a loved and planned for part of life. dysfunction isn't specifically an attribute assigned to the young, the single, the female, or the working class.

AND sex fucking happens. human bodies reach sexual maturity in the teen years because humans didn't evolve to live past the age of 35 without serious technology, nutritional, medical and dental intervention. lackadaisical teenage fuck-off-ery is a relatively new luxury. biology didn't stop dead in its tracks to accommodate.

i was a too young single mother, it wasn't at all easy. it was hard as fuck sometimes and i worked/continue to work my ass off. there were times when there was no joy left in my house. i used to think that was only because i was a single parent. as my friends have now grown into married adults, i see that there are plenty of 2 parent families with no joy left in their houses. anyone can have a really hard life. i don't recommend teenage parenthood to anyone,ever. however, it's not the end of the world. the end of your life. or some horrific societal tragedy. the thing that i have learned is not to vilify stupid kid accidents, but rather to be completely unpuritanical about the idea that one day, my kids will be teenagers with sex drives and educate and prepare them properly, with all the tools in the belts to make reasonable decisions. hopefully, it'll stick. if it doesn't, it's still not the most horrible thing ever and they will supported rather than treated like stupid irresponsible pieces of trash. which is the kind of shit i;ve had to put up with for the last 9 years.

>> ^Phreezdryd:

And as for the absent fathers they love to hate on, are they just completely evil for also being kids, and running away when the fun sex turns into the lifelong responsibility? Who knows, maybe the girl even lied about birth control to try and force him to stick around. Kids do stupid things.


are you trolling? or do you watch too many daytime talk shows??? sure, sometimes girls do asshole things like lie about being on the pill. it's not at all the norm. don't try and make it sound like a reasonable assumption.
and don't make excuses for absent fathers. abandoning your family is sort of evil. i know there are exceptions. in my baby daddy case, he was too mentally ill to be around us anymore. he made our lives better when he went away and never came back. however, most people are not profoundly mentally ill. and even he gave being a dad a decent shot. and he did and does love his kids. his absence is a tragedy in his life more than it is in ours. i saw him recently after 6 years and its very much a wound that eats him alive daily. he is sick and bony and gray. the only solace for him is to know that he went away so he couldn't continue to damage us all and that we are all happy and healthy and functional. that's the saddest thing in the world.

i find it hard to believe that a decent moral human being can completely abandon their kids with no assurance of their well-being (this statement excludes parents who leave their kids with adoptive families with the hope and trust that they will be cared for properly) and remain whole. it's a narcissistic thing to do, it is a sociopathic thing to do. in the absence of drug addiction or some obscenely destructive mental illness, there is no excuse for it. you don't have to get married, or live together, in many cases it's better if you don't. but there is no reason for a relatively sane, relatively function person to walk away entirely from another human they created. pregnancy is risk everyone who engages in vaginal intercourse takes every single day. most of them are completely aware of it. you don't get to make it sound reasonable for a person, no matter their age, to completely run away forever and not look back. you don't get to make it sound reasonable that society place 100% of the responsibility for raising functional adults entirely on women.

>> ^quantumushroom:

5:07 Obama?


Haha. He's more of the mystical evil type than the showy cape wearing one.

Best comment from that rant:
The day that I found out that my father had bought one of these bracelets was the saddest day of my life.

If today's politicians were in power during the late 60s the Vietnam war would still be going on!, seriously these new wars are just as winnable as that one, the saddest part however is that in the 60s there was alittle something called the anti-war movement but today it seems almost non-existent because as George Carlin put it, "everyone's too busy at the mall buying sneaker's with lights in them".