babysitting and mowing lawns>> ^TheFreak:

How does a fifteen year old get ahold of carbon nano tubes and mesothelin antibodies?

I didn't make a blind or pretentious assumption about you, despite that you did that to me; I based my observation on your actions. Pasting a video of a crying child and insinuating that children's behavior cannot possibly be funny are two big hints.

I didn't mistake your hatred for Family Guy; those were your statements about children in general and have nothing to do with Family Guy. Hate the show all you like. Hate the clip all you like. Just don't make a blanket statement about children and claim it's accurate and valid because you hate a TV show. One thing has naught to do with the other.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
@lucky760

You mistake my hatred of Family Guy for some misplaced hatred of children. I never said I hate children. I am the oldest of 8 kids (the youngest currently being 9 years old). I grew up dealing with diaper changes, babysitting, getting thrown up on; and spite of that I'm a school teacher. I would have a difficult or impossible time getting by if I hated kids.

Now, to quell your pretentious assumptions, I will say that I hate Family Guy. I'm not going to repeat all the criticisms it's received over the years. I used to think it was a decent show, I even signed several petitions to bring it back on the air, but since they've come back on the air it's been a pretty steady downward spiral.

This clip is a perfect example. It's not inherently funny, it's just what kids do. When kids do it, it's annoying. When I watch someone else's kid do it, it's just as annoying. And when I watch it on TV, wait...I don't watch it on TV because it's fucking annoying!!!!!

Back me up cracked.
Back me up Tv Critic.
Back me up media critics and other cartoonists.

Finally, to quote Stewie from when he was on 'Kids Say the Darndest Things' with Bill Cosby "That's not funny! He's just saying what happens when you go skiing have kids!!!

@lucky760

You mistake my hatred of Family Guy for some misplaced hatred of children. I never said I hate children. I am the oldest of 8 kids (the youngest currently being 9 years old). I grew up dealing with diaper changes, babysitting, getting thrown up on; and spite of that I'm a school teacher. I would have a difficult or impossible time getting by if I hated kids.

Now, to quell your pretentious assumptions, I will say that I hate Family Guy. I'm not going to repeat all the criticisms it's received over the years. I used to think it was a decent show, I even signed several petitions to bring it back on the air, but since they've come back on the air it's been a pretty steady downward spiral.

This clip is a perfect example. It's not inherently funny, it's just what kids do. When kids do it, it's annoying. When I watch someone else's kid do it, it's just as annoying. And when I watch it on TV, wait...I don't watch it on TV because it's fucking annoying!!!!!

Back me up cracked.
Back me up Tv Critic.
Back me up media critics and other cartoonists.

Finally, to quote Stewie from when he was on 'Kids Say the Darndest Things' with Bill Cosby "That's not funny! He's just saying what happens when you go skiing have kids!!!

Sorry, I assumed "stopped" meant "stopped being legal." So, what about the other forms of equal "abuse..." They are transparently abusive, so would you make them illegal?

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
We know that kids watching TV is far worse than spanking when one is done in moderation and one is not. And yet TV is abused hours on end as a mean of "babysitting." The argument that spanking needs stopped because there is no clear line is false.
There is no clear line when reckless driving happens. Is a turn without a blinker reckless? (I would say yes.) Is an hour shoved in front of a TV, all so the mom/father don't have to pay attention to the interrupting child abuse? (I would say, "Fuck yes.")
I have cut back on spanking my daughter, not because society says so. I do so because my oldest responds better to love... My second to alternative disciplines and my last, she is too young... However, every child is different.
P.S., In some ways I would have rather died than to have had my mother scream at me until 3 AM (No joke) about what a POS I was... Oh god how I wish she just beat me--then I would be justified for having a fucked mind...
>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^MilkmanDan:
I don't think spanking in general is "wrong" in all situations. Parents need to have freedom to decide what they think works best with their children in terms of rewards, punishments, and other systems of encouraging or discouraging specific behaviors.
I'd wager that anyone from the baby boomer generation or older probably grew up experiencing some corporal punishment / spanking along the lines of what the book author was describing. I think that is pretty much the far end of acceptable severity for today, and well beyond what I would do myself, but considering that so many people were exposed to that in previous generations it would be illogical to suggest that it is unacceptable or too extreme.

Spanking needs to remain illegal. There is no clearly defined line otherwise between the moment you're spanking and the moment you are too/even more brutal. Imho, spanking above a light pat is always unnecessary and counterproductive, but I don't have children yet, so disregard my opinion if you guys want.
The 'older generations did it and all worked out' argument is not a good one. Older generations were not scientifically researched, at least my google-searches returned negative. It is not illogical to assume that it is unacceptable or too extreme.


I did not say 'stopped,' I said it should be illegal. So when there is a case of abuse, a parent cannot just fall back on: "It was just a spanking." Under the rule of law, the right to be unharmed should stand above all punishments.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

We know that kids watching TV is far worse than spanking when one is done in moderation and one is not. And yet TV is abused hours on end as a mean of "babysitting." The argument that spanking needs stopped because there is no clear line is false.
There is no clear line when reckless driving happens. Is a turn without a blinker reckless? (I would say yes.) Is an hour shoved in front of a TV, all so the mom/father don't have to pay attention to the interrupting child abuse? (I would say, "Fuck yes.")
I have cut back on spanking my daughter, not because society says so. I do so because my oldest responds better to love... My second to alternative disciplines and my last, she is too young... However, every child is different.
P.S., In some ways I would have rather died than to have had my mother scream at me until 3 AM (No joke) about what a POS I was... Oh god how I wish she just beat me--then I would be justified for having a fucked mind...
>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^MilkmanDan:
I don't think spanking in general is "wrong" in all situations. Parents need to have freedom to decide what they think works best with their children in terms of rewards, punishments, and other systems of encouraging or discouraging specific behaviors.
I'd wager that anyone from the baby boomer generation or older probably grew up experiencing some corporal punishment / spanking along the lines of what the book author was describing. I think that is pretty much the far end of acceptable severity for today, and well beyond what I would do myself, but considering that so many people were exposed to that in previous generations it would be illogical to suggest that it is unacceptable or too extreme.

Spanking needs to remain illegal. There is no clearly defined line otherwise between the moment you're spanking and the moment you are too/even more brutal. Imho, spanking above a light pat is always unnecessary and counterproductive, but I don't have children yet, so disregard my opinion if you guys want.
The 'older generations did it and all worked out' argument is not a good one. Older generations were not scientifically researched, at least my google-searches returned negative. It is not illogical to assume that it is unacceptable or too extreme.



I did not say 'stopped,' I said it should be illegal. So when there is a case of abuse, a parent cannot just fall back on: "It was just a spanking." Under the rule of law, the right to be unharmed should stand above all punishments.

We know that kids watching TV is far worse than spanking when one is done in moderation and one is not. And yet TV is abused hours on end as a mean of "babysitting." The argument that spanking needs stopped because there is no clear line is false.

There is no clear line when reckless driving happens. Is a turn without a blinker reckless? (I would say yes.) Is an hour shoved in front of a TV, all so the mom/father don't have to pay attention to the interrupting child abuse? (I would say, "Fuck yes.")

I have cut back on spanking my daughter, not because society says so. I do so because my oldest responds better to love... My second to alternative disciplines and my last, she is too young... However, every child is different.

P.S., In some ways I would have rather died than to have had my mother scream at me until 3 AM (No joke) about what a POS I was... Oh god how I wish she just beat me--then I would be justified for having a fucked mind...

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^MilkmanDan:
I don't think spanking in general is "wrong" in all situations. Parents need to have freedom to decide what they think works best with their children in terms of rewards, punishments, and other systems of encouraging or discouraging specific behaviors.
I'd wager that anyone from the baby boomer generation or older probably grew up experiencing some corporal punishment / spanking along the lines of what the book author was describing. I think that is pretty much the far end of acceptable severity for today, and well beyond what I would do myself, but considering that so many people were exposed to that in previous generations it would be illogical to suggest that it is unacceptable or too extreme.

Spanking needs to remain illegal. There is no clearly defined line otherwise between the moment you're spanking and the moment you are too/even more brutal. Imho, spanking above a light pat is always unnecessary and counterproductive, but I don't have children yet, so disregard my opinion if you guys want.
The 'older generations did it and all worked out' argument is not a good one. Older generations were not scientifically researched, at least my google-searches returned negative. It is not illogical to assume that it is unacceptable or too extreme.

People would respect teachers more if they were to dissapear. Then who would babysit your seven retard hillbilly chidren all fucking day while you spend 16 hours at your non-unionised minimum wage chicken de-gibleting job.

I really think you guys are reading way to much into this. At no point are they saying "be afraid! stay away from any and all extracurricular activities and keep a man next to you for safety!" just the usual message of using common sense to judge the situation and to be careful around strangers. Would you let your child ride home from the theater with a pair of strangers they just met that night? or babysit for a man/couple that you yourself had never met? If you answered yes to any of those questions you need some serious tweaking of your idea of whats safe.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The more of Gods laws this country openly flaunts, the more it hastens itself towards destruction. God has richly blessed this nation, and because of that, He requires much of us..


HAHAHAHA!!! What the FUCK?! How has some mythical, nebulous idea invented by man that you call "god" done ANYTHING for this country, or any other thing that exists, for that matter?


To deny the power, determination, and ingenuity of mankind is to truly walk life blind. The lie that is god did not do anything to "bless" this country. Anything and everything that we have is solely because of US. Us fellow humans get things done on our own. We live and survive and let live without the need for archaic misbeliefs.

If there is one thing that religion does, it's motivate through fearmongering, not anything worth subscribing to or openly admitting you believe in. To do so, is to admit mental illness, and the rest of us who are sane will eagerly cast you aside to be left behind with the rest of the backward thinkers. Religion does more long term damage than it does good, and you're lying to yourself by being fearful to live life without some mythical deity holding your hand and babysitting you all along the way.

Damn. You must be good.>> ^peggedbea:

massages baby, massages. >> ^burdturgler:
>> ^peggedbea:
i learned the art and joy of bartering services with associates.
free medical care, free accounting, free oil changes, free pot, free babysitting, free coffee, free massages, free hair cuts ftw! now all i need is a good dentist!!

I can't get people to do the shit that I actually pay them to do. What services are you exchanging for all of this? The mind wobbles ..

massages baby, massages. >> ^burdturgler:

>> ^peggedbea:
i learned the art and joy of bartering services with associates.
free medical care, free accounting, free oil changes, free pot, free babysitting, free coffee, free massages, free hair cuts ftw! now all i need is a good dentist!!

I can't get people to do the shit that I actually pay them to do. What services are you exchanging for all of this? The mind wobbles ..

>> ^peggedbea:

i learned the art and joy of bartering services with associates.
free medical care, free accounting, free oil changes, free pot, free babysitting, free coffee, free massages, free hair cuts ftw! now all i need is a good dentist!!


I can't get people to do the shit that I actually pay them to do. What services are you exchanging for all of this? The mind wobbles ..

i learned the art and joy of bartering services with associates.

free medical care, free accounting, free oil changes, free pot, free babysitting, free coffee, free massages, free hair cuts ftw! now all i need is a good dentist!!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think this is really well put. I like the idea of a mutebox.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Clearly, we're all opinionated mofos and are going to butt heads.
So yeah, to slow VideoSift's inevitable slide into a niche version of youtube - comments and all - Civility is important.
Since Dag and Lucky probably have more important things to do than babysit, and VideoSift was founded on the principles of self-correcting stewardship or whatnot..
We should find a solution to maintain civility that satisfies both.
All that said, the two best method for returning civility to VideoSift have been suggested by @rottenseed & @lucky760:
      1. Anonymous "flag inappropriate" is a must.
[Tit for tat has been the name of the game on this site for a while, myself included. BoneRemake is just that infuriating sometimes, hah.]
      2. Muting malicious users for a few days is sensible.
[Ten flags by Gold Stars gets you 3 days in the mutebox? Maybe even a new badge to track frequency? Increasing mutebox timeouts of 3,7,11,15 days?]
      3. Crown Stars could be our own CSI!
[Crown users could browse the list of users in the Mutebox in order to help mediate.
We all trust our Crown star members to be honest and somewhat impartial investigators, right? ...right?]
      4. Receiving enough "inappropriate" flags or MuteBox Badge levels summons the heaviest of hitters - @dag & @lucky760
[This insures only the douchey-est of douches are singled out for bannination.
If you don't get the hint to be more civil after 30 or 40 members repeatedly tell you to cut it out, it's clear you didn't join the sift to be a productive part of our community.]
Anywho, that was my 1/5th of a dime.
Peace, bitches trolls and douche bags. = P

Clearly, we're all opinionated mofos and are going to butt heads.

So yeah, to slow VideoSift's inevitable slide into a niche version of youtube - comments and all - Civility is important.

Since Dag and Lucky probably have more important things to do than babysit, and VideoSift was founded on the principles of self-correcting stewardship or whatnot..

We should find a solution to maintain civility that satisfies both.

All that said, the two best method for returning civility to VideoSift have been suggested by @rottenseed & @lucky760:

      1. Anonymous "flag inappropriate" is a must.

[Tit for tat has been the name of the game on this site for a while, myself included. BoneRemake is just that infuriating sometimes, hah.]

      2. Muting malicious users for a few days is sensible.

[Ten flags by Gold Stars gets you 3 days in the mutebox? Maybe even a new badge to track frequency? Increasing mutebox timeouts of 3,7,11,15 days?]

      3. Crown Stars could be our own CSI!

[Crown users could browse the list of users in the Mutebox in order to help mediate.

We all trust our Crown star members to be honest and somewhat impartial investigators, right? ...right?]

      4. Receiving enough "inappropriate" flags or MuteBox Badge levels summons the heaviest of hitters - @dag & @lucky760

[This insures only the douchey-est of douches are singled out for bannination.

If you don't get the hint to be more civil after 30 or 40 members repeatedly tell you to cut it out, it's clear you didn't join the sift to be a productive part of our community.]

Anywho, that was my 1/5th of a dime.

Peace, bitches trolls and douche bags. = P