Norwegian cops dont carry guns, Swedish carry, but I think the bar that they have for actually DRAWING the gun is extremely high. I dont know the statistics in either country, so it is an uninformed and anecdotal impression I get, that US cops seems to draw weapons almost as a default reflex in any situation they deem to be potentially dangerous.

There was a video on here a couple of days ago, where the cop was praised for not shooting the suspect, well that suspect seemed to be unarmed (crazy, and suspected murderer, sure, but still unarmed) What about alternative methods, ie: Talking calmly, trying to defuse the situation etc. before drawing? (Maybe that did happen before the video starts, but it doesnt seem that way)

Tags for this video have been changed from 'anecdote, Jim Jeffries, Star Wars, George Lucas, Scott, lizzard, Sydney, contract' to 'anecdote, Jim Jefferies, Star Wars, George Lucas, Scott, lizzard, Sydney, contract' - edited by eric3579

A couple of things:

I have verifiable evidence than Marijuana is both addictive and harmful

unless you've conducted double-blinded randomised controlled trials, you don't have evidence, you have anecdotes. Yeah, that sounds kinda dickish, but it's really important.

no one should dictate what plants others can eat

That's pretty ambiguous. First, we're not just talking about eating, we're talking about using in other ways too (in this case, smoking). Second, we already regulate other plants/products, like alcohol and tobacco.

For me, it's pretty simple. Marijuana does not cause sufficient harm as to warrant making it illegal. If an informed consenting adult chooses to smoke, drink or get stoned, that should be their choice. Obviously you shouldn't be drunk or stoned while driving or doing surgery or caring for kids, etc, but we already control for these cases with alcohol.

TBH, as much as I love beer, whiskey and wine, it's much harder to justify keeping alcohol legal than it is to keep marijuana illegal.

I think that the noise being picked up by the recorder makes it sound a lot worse than what it is. In my opinion, he's only really patting next to the baby.

Would it not be fair to say that clapping is a roughly equivalent action? And i see people doing that near babies all the time without someone worrying about affecting the kid's mental state as it grows up, or worrying if the kid perceives the clapping of hands as a threat or worry.

If babies are too young to understand, then they may misunderstand clapping? Or alternatively how are they to understand the waving of someone's hand nearby to be aggressive? Especially given that it appears to be a comfortable family unit.

Most importantly, can we please consider that the baby was slapping its own leg? Perhaps one day the baby slapped its hand about, the father did the same thing, and the baby got enjoyment out of it? It slaps its hand about again at the end too. We don't know, we can't know, and it's very unfair to make so many casual assumptions - not just about his actions, but about what is normal for different people.

I'm concerned about the amount of assumptions being made in chastising this man. Especially when drawing a parallel to an anecdote about someone "growing up skittish" because of "teasing". Correlation, not necessarily causation.. and again, what evidence is this of teasing, and how is it fair to speculatively compare it to something stated so vaguely?

I'm sorry to be combative about it, but i feel this is a huge leap of imagination based on 30 seconds of video. A great many of us (if not all) could be made to look all kinds of contrary ways based on 30 second snippets, and it's an indelible brush that he's being hurriedly tarred with. I stand to be corrected, but i don't see any signs of distress either from the baby or the person recording, and the baby looks otherwise healthy and well provisioned. It was not placed in that seating with those accoutrements without care and attention. I think more harm than good can come of judging things like this, considering the subtlety of most *actual* abusers.

Interesting anecdote, I'm mixed. Black & Hispanic.

I love Jamaican Beef/Chicken/Veggie patties. Spicy & delicious!

However, the one spot around here that's owned & run by Jamaican folks has shitty service.

There's always an line & an attitude.

One day, I waited in line for like 20 minutes just to get a Spinach pattie.

When I got to the front, I order .. but of course.. THEY'RE OUT!

As I leave, the owner says. "Next time, just call ahead."
Like it's my fault.

WTF! Are you serious?! That's like me calling Taco Bell to make sure they have chalupas.

All I could think was "WHY ARE JAMAICAN PEOPLE SO SHITTY!?"

I was shocked by my own bigoted thought.

My father - a black man - told be a long time ago "I don't like Jamaicans. Don't trust them"

I thought he was just being his usual bigoted self.

But nope, ten years or so later and here I find myself distrusting ALL Jamaican people.

I'm black & hispanic.
I'm sorta racist toward Jamaicans. ..and white people.

Full Disclosure:

I live in the south so.. I assume any old white person with a drawl is just barely holding back from saying something racist as fuck.

I'm also aware that the rate of police shootings of young black males is the same as the rate of lynchings of black males in the Jim Crow era.

So of course I don't trust cops. Yes, even black ones.

In conclusion -
People are racist. Cops are People. Cops are racist.

I thought you said anecdotal evidence was irrelevant. I suppose you have changed your mind about that.

It's a bit hard to come up with personal anecdotes to support or deny the claim, since our culture discourages sharing information about how much we get paid. I know the salaries of -very- few folks I've worked with.

That said, there are a few. My former manager had worked for the company for a number of years before I started there. She was the tech lead for our development team. About a year and a half after I started, she was promoted to manager over the team, and I got promoted to tech lead. In spite of the fact that she had worked there several times as long as I had, and was without question every bit as technically talented as I am, the difference in our salaries was nada. The only difference in our annual income was that she got a 15% bonus, where I got a 10% bonus.

It's certainly possible that there are other explanations for the discrepancy...working at the same company for long periods, while making you -far- more valuable to the company, leads to a -far- lower rate of pay compared to someone who moves around every 2-3 years. That could be involved (although it's -just- as nonsensical). But given the culture at this company, I would have no trouble believing that the core issue was her gender.

Anyone have a link to the original video? This guy with five teeth must be telling the funniest anecdote in the history of mankind.

I'm also happy to see that we can now let the Germans in on the joke. If someone could use some CGI magic so Fiveteeth is sitting at the table in Hitler's bunker, that would probably be pretty great.

@newtboy With contentious topics like this, the conversation is barely "adult".

It's nitpicky and tangential because everyone thinks they alone are adding some great insight to the discussion.

@Babymech hopped on the "Anita doesn't owe anyone anything" cart.

@Trancecoach was closer to base but then got all "you see, it's really the blacks that are the problem"

@ChaosEngine choose the "well youtube comments are generally insulting & abusive.. therefore it's okay to block valid criticism too!"

Great, what does that have to do with the message of the speaker.
Or my point of "hey, why are you completely avoiding the overall message of the speaker"

Furthermore, what's the difference between Baby's condescending tone and my outright insults?

Both are belittling & incongruent with "adult" behavior/conversation.

Ultimately, he too is trying to swat down argument/opinion that doesn't mesh with his.

Regardless of my brash way of speaking, my points are still valid.

I do my research. I don't talk about topics I'm ignorant on.
And as I said, I was once a fan of Anita Sarkeesian and her videos.

Then I ran into her bullshit.

There's tons of evidence on youtube that points out Sarkeesian's hypocrisy.

So if you're uninformed, why not take it upon yourself.. to educate yourself.

You folks are barely any better then lantern or bobknight with your knee-jerky devils' advocate defense of a pseudo-intellectual prestige-hound who is unscrupulous in the way she pursues her agenda.

Next you're gonna tell me that somehow Bill Cosby isn't a date-rapist.

"Well you know, it was only 25-30 women with identical experiences/anecdotes. ..MJ is still definitely a pederast tho."

My point here is:

You all frame this video with your personal opinion BEFORE analyzing the entirety of it's message & context.

I get that, because it's a pot-stirrer.
But seriously, if you just think it out:

A - Gamergate is first world problem bullshit
B - It has garnered unwarranted hype and a counter-cult of white-knight SJW supporters.
C - It's being conflated with an ACTUAL very serious set of issues.
Online Harassment. Slut shaming. The depiction & plight of genders in pop culture. etc.
D - Actual victims & movements, ON BOTH SIDES, are being undermined by this frenzy.

Juxtapose that with the brutal home invasion & sexual assault..

Then ask yourself if the nitpicky personal opinion you're about to express maintains the situation & context.

Otherwise, you end up expressing terrible mindless thoughts like @Babymech.
in effect - "regardless of her peer's brutal rape.. she has no right to expect an outspoken proponent of women's rights.. to respond to her.. or call attention to the most disparaged & vulnerable/easily victimized members of society, female sex workers"

This is why the videosift community can barely be taken seriously.

It's like 4chan flamewars for boring old people.

..now everyone is on my case for [aggressively] pointing this out.



PHO PHO PHO PHO PHO Bun cha gio, mmm.

The scripture is wrong. Most all atheists die having NEVER had any proof or even evidence of any god's existence. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. For me to believe something as insane as religion, I need incontrovertible proof, it's how I was "made". I've yet to see evidence, much less proof, of anything supernatural, ever.
If few "find the narrow way" then it's hidden to most. You want to say "finding" a thing is attaining it. They are different words, that's why they are spelled and pronounced differently. If you can't 'find' the path, it's hidden, if you can't stay on the path because you don't possess the skill to do so (and you believe you were created by god) that's on god for designing you so poorly.
Being paralyzed the way I described is indistinguishable from death, even with modern machinery.
If Jesus was doing a selfless thing, sin would be gone for everyone, not just those that worship him. Saying "I eradicated this evil ethereal thing I brought to you, but only if you bow to me and give me 10% of your money" is so self serving and evil I can't properly describe it. I still disagree with the 'Jesus is special so he suffered more in <3 days that all humanity does in eternity'. That denies logic and math. Any portion of eternity is eternity, and any measure of 'infinitely worse than the worst punishment imaginable' is also infinitely bad, so he didn't accept even a portion of the punishment, and one can't suffer more than the worst suffering possible. And now Jesus IS sin?!? And you worship him?!? Don't you see a problem there?
I actually don't think Jesus ever made any of the claims you make about him, only some of his followers stories re-told for hundreds of years before being re-written say those things.
If he never presents himself to me, who's fault is that? If I was created the way I am by him, he knows exactly what it will take to make me 'believe', and he's simply and clearly not doing it. God must WANT me to not believe in him, it's the only thing that makes sense if he exists, but it's much more likely that he just isn't.

As an interesting parallel; my dog started losing his hair. I went online to figure out the cause and learned a lot of good information. Food sensitivity causes canine hair loss, corn based diets are bad for dogs, large inexpensive name brands use suspect ingredients...there were tons of forum discussions available with information. Pages of talk with people's experience trying to correct the problem. Inevitably, they fed the dog such and such terribly expensive food and the problem went away...then the manufacturer must have changed the formula because it came back...tried new ultra expensive dog food which fixed the problem....

Everyone obviously loved their dogs and they were doing everything they could to fix it. Same story over and over, tons of money spent.

Until I noticed one random comment that was different; "seasonal pattern baldness". Nothing you can do, it's incurable and comes and goes with the seasons.

So all the anecdotal experience, one food fixed it then the brand changed and it came back...all of it was random chance as the problem naturally came and went. But when the answer was provided, you can't fix the problem, it was completely ignored.

I believe people reject that they can't control things in life. Isnt this what makes people reject science and turn to naturalism and religion? The idea that you can reshape the world, in your own mind, into something you can control.

I deal with this sort of behaviour every day in Toronto, being a cyclist in a city with very minimal cycling infrastructure. Almost being doored, hit, etc.

Yelling, cursing, being sarcastic and mean will never ever change these people's behaviour. Ever. Have you ever gone home after being yelled at someone about something you're sure you're right about and thought, "Huh. That person who called me an asshole really had a good point."

If anything, it pushes someone on the brink of not being an asshole further onto the wrong side.

I find that if I give very genuine comments like, "Please, sir/maam, that sort of behaviour scares the shit out of me. Can you please be more careful?" their responses are literally (anecdotally) 70% apologetic. 30% can't confront their own behaviour when actually talking to a human, so they ignore you.

Don't get me wrong. I've yelled the fuck out of some people in the heat of the moment. When you almost die that can happen.

But when you're composed enough to respond humanly, the question is are you responding to make yourself feel better, or are you actually trying to influence someone else's behaviour?

Yes, millions of unvaccinated peopled did survive, and still do. Congratulations to you and your son for being among those.

But millions have also died. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, about 2.6 million people died of measles. [1] In 2013, about 145,000 people still died from measles globally, most under the age of 5.

I know people who smoked but did not get lung cancer. I know people who do not wear a seat belt but have not died in a car accident. These anecdotes do not bring back the millions of people whose early death could have been prevented. Easily prevented.

[1] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

Remember that video of James Hetfield catching on fire due to a misfiring pyrotechnic...?

It's not just about the safety of the band, or the price of the gear, it's also about the safety of the fan. Some bands are cool with it, that's their business, but as the other poster noted, it's their place of work and quite a few of us wouldn't allow randoms to just wander in to our place of work unchallenged.

That being said, the security should have been on top of that before it happened. While it makes a cool anecdote and video clip, the star of the show shouldn't have to arrest a loose fan on the stage...

Sure lucky760, I'll do Splenda, since some varieties of Coke Zero have Splenda in them.

First off it is important to note that the majority of the anti-sweetener "science" has been done by one man: Dr. Joseph Mercola. Now, watch out here, because his name is deceptive. You see, Mercola is an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy is a form of pseudoscience that believes that all pathology can be solved by manipulation of the bones and muscles. There is little science to back up these claims because they are clearly insane and worthy of ridicule. So, much like his doctorate, the claims he makes against sweeteners are pseudoscientific. A number of his beliefs are: that AIDS is not cause by HIV but by psychological stress; that immunizations and prescription drugs shouldn't be prescribed but people should instead buy his dietary supplements; that vaccinations are bad for you and your children (a belief which is the cause of recent outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps); and that microwaves are dangerous machines that irradiate their products (they do, but not with the kind of radiation he is thinking of). Since he made a movie called Sweet Mistery: A Poisoned World, he has been at the forefront of anti-sweetener rhetoric. If you watch the movie, note how hilariously bad it is at actual science; the majority of the "evidence" is people claiming side effects after having ingested something with a sweetener in it (anecdotes are worth nothing in science except perhaps as a reason for researching further). So, you have a movement against something seen as "artificial" by a man who is not a doctor, not a scientist and is clearly lacking in the basics of logic.

Now, Splenda. Created by Johnson and Johnson and a British company in the seventies, it's primary sweetener ingredient is sucralose. The rest of it is dextrose, which as I have said above, is really just d-glucose and is safe for consumption in even very large quantities. So really, we are asking about sucralose. Sucralose is vastly sweeter than sucrose (usually around ~650 times) and thus only a very small amount is needed in whatever it is you are trying to sweeten. The current amount that is considered unsafe for intake (the starting point where adverse effects are felt) is around 1.5g/kg of body weight. So for the average male of 180lbs, they would need to ingest 130g of sucralose to feel any adverse effects. This is compared to the mg of sucralose that you will actually be getting every day. The estimated daily intake of someone who actually consumes sucralose is around 1.1mg/kg, which leaves a massive gap. Similarly to aspartame, if you tried to ingest that much sucralose, you would be incapable due to the overwhelming sweetness of the stuff.

There is some evidence that sucralose may affect people in high doses, but once again, this is similar to the issues with aspartame, where the likelihood of you getting those doses is extremely unlikely.

The chemistry of sucralose is actually way too complicated to go into, but suffice it to say that unlike aspartame, sucralose is not broken down in the body at all and is simply excreted through the kidney just like any other non-reactive agent. The reason that it tastes sweet is because it has the same shape as sucrose except that some of the hydroxy groups are replaced with chlorine atoms. This allows it to fit in the neurotransmitters in the tongue and mouth that send you the sensation of sweetness without also giving you all of those calories. Once it passes into the bloodstream it is dumped out by the kidneys without passing through the liver at all.

In sum, if sweeteners were bad for you, they wouldn't be allowed in your food. Science is not against you, it is the only thing working for everyone at the same time. The reason sugar has gotten around this is because we have always had it. If you want to be healthier, don't drink pop, drink water or milk (unless you are lactose intolerant, then just drink water). Don't drink coconut milk, or gatorade, or vitamin water. Assume that when a company comes out with something like "fat free" it really reads "now loaded with sugar so it doesn't taste like fucking cardboard." Assume that when a company says something is "natural" it is no more natural than the oils you put in your car. IF you want to live and eat healthy, stay on the outside of the supermarket, avoiding the aisles. All of the processed food is in the aisles, not on the outsides and the companies know that you don't want to miss anything. Make your food, don't let someone else do it. And never, ever buy popped popcorn, anywhere, the mark-up on that shit is insane.