You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Jim Jeffries - Muslims, Beer and Burn Victims. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'JIm, jeffries, islam, muslim, bacon, beer, booze, alcohol, burn, victims' to 'Jim Jefferies, islam, muslim, bacon, beer, booze, alcohol, burn, victims' - edited by eric3579

Couldn't he have it surgically removed and donate it to a burn victim, so they wouldn't have to use reconstituted cadaver skin? He might even be able to make a deal where the burn victim pays for the removal and maybe throws in some lipo for his trouble. That seems like a win win situation to me.

I understand what you're saying. And yeah, admittedly my burn-victim analogy wasn't too apt.

But I have no way of knowing, from a small video and what it's described as, that the entire thing was not a room full of actors with a common purpose who mocked the entire thing up to make Muslims look bad. The video is so awkward already it threw it into question for me, and that's where I find it prejudicial to say "fuck these people", because there's a big assumption there. It's unlikely, but it's possible.

Lastly, like @Babymech said, there's some backstory there that can make all the difference. So with a little better understanding, in the end the only difference between our opinions is that I kind of think everyone involved in it, film-maker, police, students, etc. are all fucking idiots.

prej·u·dice
/ˈprejədəs/
Noun
Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience.

Sorry, it isn't. I have observed these peoples behaviour and have judged them based on that experience. Not that I didn't say "fuck all muslims". I simply have no time for these specific people who went to an admittedly stupid movie with the express purpose of being offended.

And your analogy is kinda hyperbolic. It's more like a group of burn victims going to see a fire eater and then complaining about it.

@ChaosEngine - I am only expressing suspicion for benefit of the doubt. All we know of this situation is what the video summary says it is, and what we see in it, which is carries very little information in itself. *For all I know* this could be a complete mock-up just to get people who are already against this demographic in an uproar, and cement their existing prejudice.

That is very unlikely, but none of us know what really went on in this video, and saying "fuck those people" is the textbook definition of prejudice.

Assuming this is exactly what it says it is, even in the best case scenario, you're basically taking a room-full of burn-victims and setting the place on fire to get a reaction from them.

Its not funny because it is weak. It is the comedic equivalent of making fun of George Bush.

>> ^rottenseed:

HAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!! Don't worry, this comment was a lot funnier than these up-tights would ever admit. Don't make fun of the Jews! The HOLOCAUST! (but let's make fun of Christians and Muslims from dawn 'til dusk). Jews don't deserve special treatment. Nobody does. (except burn victims ~(:·o) <-Burn vicitm )
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> gorillaman said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/g/gorillaman-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">Everyone knows it doesn't count as rape if she's a jew.
</div></div></div>

I still can't tell if that tilde is a tuft of hair or his head smoldering. I guess it's whatever I want it to be

In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
HAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!! Don't worry, this comment was a lot funnier than these up-tights would ever admit. Don't make fun of the Jews! The HOLOCAUST! (but let's make fun of Christians and Muslims from dawn 'til dusk). Jews don't deserve special treatment. Nobody does. (except burn victims ~(:·o) <-Burn vicitm )That's a nice burn victim emoticon.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
HAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!! Don't worry, this comment was a lot funnier than these up-tights would ever admit. Don't make fun of the Jews! The HOLOCAUST! (but let's make fun of Christians and Muslims from dawn 'til dusk). Jews don't deserve special treatment. Nobody does. (except burn victims ~(:·o) <-Burn vicitm )That's a nice burn victim emoticon.

>> ^gorillaman:

Everyone knows it doesn't count as rape if she's a jew.


HAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!! Don't worry, this comment was a lot funnier than these up-tights would ever admit. Don't make fun of the Jews! The HOLOCAUST! (but let's make fun of Christians and Muslims from dawn 'til dusk). Jews don't deserve special treatment. Nobody does. (except burn victims ~(:·o) <-Burn vicitm )

One should have to be a burn victim to have access to this sort of thing. If I met some normal person wearing this, essentially being an impersonator, I would punch away.

argh. for some reason, i can't quote properly. sorry. but just going back to "the head can't live without the body" -
consider how easy it is for burn victims to die. It's just skin right? - or is it the largest sensory organ of the body (the skin plus the superficial fasica below)? Give the body a crispy coating, and see how long the fucking head lives....and that's not even considering excising the rest of the organs and nervous system...

The conversation about cost is interesting, and frankly if anything was made clear at the summit it is the central issue of contention. To those that say it is meaningless, that's ridiculous. Of course it matters, you just want there to be "uniform standards of care." It's not that you don't think costs matter, it's that you don't think "ability to pay" should. Personally I don't mind that, but there are obvious gray areas. Plastic surgery is a medical procedure, for instance. Some people need it (burn victims, say). Others, maybe not? Where exactly you put those sorts of lines, and who decides, is the crux of the question.

Currently, the health insurance agencies make the call. I think there is broad agreement that their power to do so should be removed (get rid of pre-existing conditions, etc). The issue then becomes, who does? How do you control costs? The proponents of single-payer generally want the government to make that call. They should, according to democrats, at least make broad outlines to the scope of doctors' discretion.

Conservatives frequently prefer health savings accounts (similar to Singapore's system). They feel this puts the consumer in the position to weigh various options, and thus promotes competition. One of the arguments is that skyrocketing healthcare expenses are the direct result of end consumers not directly feeling the costs, and making shrewder choices. Especially with a pay-per-procedure system, it's created perverse incentives (needless tests, up-coding, etc).

>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^westy:
I wonder if people wud be interested in her if she was a proper minger before the rape and acid attack .

Interesting, something to contemplate.
Also, I am interested in what that plastic apparatus is that she is wearing. Does any one know what that is called?
Found an article on it, the plastic mask, developed in Queen Mary's University Hospital is used to reduce the scaring caused by burns.


It's a face warmer.

>> ^westy:
I wonder if people wud be interested in her if she was a proper minger before the rape and acid attack .


Interesting, something to contemplate.

Also, I am interested in what that plastic apparatus is that she is wearing. Does any one know what that is called?

Found an article on it, the plastic mask, developed in Queen Mary's University Hospital is used to reduce the scaring caused by burns.