http://www.jtt.ne.jp/shop/product/goki_rc/ but can we buy them in USA?

I noticed Amazon.com carries, but not cool as Japanese's: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=rc+cockroach

>> ^PlayhousePals:

My cats want! =oO


And not you?

>> ^Fusionaut:

ME WANT 2!!!


Me too, but I want ants!

Just out of shot: Pissed off cockroach on crutches looking on, smoking a cigarette.

"Using setups like this can help us understand how neurons and muscles work"

Really? Somehow I doubt this little rig is going to advance neuroscience very much. On the other hand, if it's a step towards making cockroaches dance for my entertainment, carry on.

Giving birth the hissing cockroach way:
...because if you're going to be split open by a writhing mass of dozens of new lives, it's better to be upside-down.

>> ^longde:

I'll only accept that argument from vegans. The rest of us humans inflict horrible suffering on animals (or directly benefit from it) all the time. I think what the data referenced above shows is that many or most people who are sadistic fiends have once hurt animals, not the opposite, that most people who hurt animals will turn into sadistic fiends (unproven, but could be true).
What separates a cat from a cockroach? Both are animals, right? I have horribly murdered so many cockroaches and flies it's ridiculous. I knew kids who used to kick over or flood ant mounds. Lemme check facebook...yep, all psychopaths.
The reason doesn't matter if the concern is for the suffering of sentient beings, right? So, what about sport hunters? Butchers? Livestock Farmers? Chefs? You get the point. All these people inflict great pain on animals. I guess my whole extended family are closet ax murderers, since it contains sport hunters, sport fishermen, people who raise and slaughter hogs, etc.....and people who used to go to Red Lobster on weekends.
I myself don't think cats are any more entitled than hogs, deer, chickens, lobsters and cows...or flies and cockroaches. And certainly not on the same level as humans (which too many people believe). So, while I recognize that cats et al suffer, feel empathy and would never hurt any animal (I don't even like killing spiders now; even at the behest of my wife) ; I can't get as worked up over this as some of you are.

(BTW, this conversation reminds me of the Lawrence Block story "How would you like it?")
edit: except mosquitoes. >> ^Gallowflak:
>> ^longde:
I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.
>> ^Jinx:
Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.


What does it show? That they're able to inflict horrible suffering on a creature without being halted by such measly things as compassion or empathy. An act like this is a huge warning sign that we're dealing with a morally bankrupt piece of shit, at the least, or psychopath, at the worst.
A human being without empathy who acts immorally is someone who, if rehabilitation isn't possible, the community needs to get rid of.



Yes, we all benefit from the suffering of animals, that's true, but there's not an equivalence between that and inflicting it oneself.

There's a vast difference between animals suffering as a consequence of an action that has utility and inflicting suffering for its own sake.

I'll only accept that argument from vegans. The rest of us humans inflict horrible suffering on animals (or directly benefit from it) all the time. I think what the data referenced above shows is that many or most people who are sadistic fiends have once hurt animals, not the opposite, that most people who hurt animals will turn into sadistic fiends (unproven, but could be true).

What separates a cat from a cockroach? Both are animals, right? I have horribly murdered so many cockroaches and flies it's ridiculous. I knew kids who used to kick over or flood ant mounds. Lemme check facebook...yep, all psychopaths.

The reason doesn't matter if the concern is for the suffering of sentient beings, right? So, what about sport hunters? Butchers? Livestock Farmers? Chefs? You get the point. All these people inflict great pain on animals. I guess my whole extended family are closet ax murderers, since it contains sport hunters, sport fishermen, people who raise and slaughter hogs, etc.....and people who used to go to Red Lobster on weekends.

I myself don't think cats are any more entitled than hogs, deer, chickens, lobsters and cows...or flies and cockroaches. And certainly not on the same level as humans (which too many people believe). So, while I recognize that cats et al suffer, feel empathy and would never hurt any animal (I don't even like killing spiders now; even at the behest of my wife)*; I can't get as worked up over this as some of you are.


(BTW, this conversation reminds me of the Lawrence Block story "How would you like it?")

*edit: except mosquitoes. >> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^longde:
I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.
>> ^Jinx:
Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.


What does it show? That they're able to inflict horrible suffering on a creature without being halted by such measly things as compassion or empathy. An act like this is a huge warning sign that we're dealing with a morally bankrupt piece of shit, at the least, or psychopath, at the worst.
A human being without empathy who acts immorally is someone who, if rehabilitation isn't possible, the community needs to get rid of.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Someone has to be God, this what you don't understand. I doubt many of you have thought this through very deeply. Let's play your game for a moment. Let's say the Universe really is 20 billion years old, and life is able to evolve spontaneously from nothing. This means that some lifeforms have had a lot more time to develop than others, and the ones who were successful early and have mastered physical reality are going to be more powerful than anyone else. If any of this is true you most certainly already have a self-proclaimed divinity, one that may look upon a lifeform like us like cockroaches. The position of absolute ruler of existence is a power vacuum that will be filled by someone, and it is almost certainly filled already.
If God isnt in charge, you should be scared of who is. It is a far better thing to have someone who loves us personally and cares about our lives. The alternative is far worse, and something that should worry any thoughtful person. Because if God isn't in charge, and it isn't you and it isn't me; it is going to be someone else.

You genuinely don't understand, do you? I think I feel sorry for you.

It's not just about dullness and being boring. Religious zealots confirmed in their beliefs and unswerving in their faith make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. It's kind of like the creepiness of the uncanny valley with robots. "Letting go and letting God" is an abdication of your humanity - and it shows on the outside.

Gay people, in my subjective experience, are often the opposite. Full of quirky, imperfect, damaged humanity - or maybe you could even call it the holy spirit. I think I will.

Allow me to quote GK Chesterton:

Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.

To live like Jesus is a taller order than you seem to realize, and of course as I am sure you realize, most of us have failed to do so. You seem to have this idea that Christians believe that they are perfect, but that is a joke. We are actually far more candid with eachother about our faults than would even be socially acceptable in secular culture. We don't think we are perfect, and even the most devout of the brethern runs into doubts. Letting go and letting God isn't in the bible. What we do is trust God with our lives, it isn't sitting back and doing nothing. To do what Jesus gave us to do is a lot of hard work.

This is what you don't understand: We love God. The tragic thing about you atheists is that you do too, in your own ways. You all love the Creation. You are fascinated and mystified by the Universe, in awe of its manifold complexity and endless wonders. That is, if there is nothing attached to the experience. You value and treasure your freedom from authority, and guard it jealously; after all you think you only have one life to live. I can understand that. You want to be in control.

Yet, you're not in control. Look at Steve Jobs, he had about everything you could ever hope to have, and none of it did him the least bit of good. In the end, he illustrated the truth of this verse:

Matthew 16:26

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?


There is no control to be had, because no one is in control on this planet except for God. What you consider happenstance and coincidence doesn't really exist. So, we give God back what He already has. We decide to stop fooling ourselves and believe that we can beat the system, because the issue has already been decided. What you do in this life matters, because at the end you will give account for every idle word.

Someone has to be God, this what you don't understand. I doubt many of you have thought this through very deeply. Let's play your game for a moment. Let's say the Universe really is 20 billion years old, and life is able to evolve spontaneously from nothing. This means that some lifeforms have had a lot more time to develop than others, and the ones who were successful early and have mastered physical reality are going to be more powerful than anyone else. If any of this is true you most certainly already have a self-proclaimed divinity, one that may look upon a lifeform like us like cockroaches. The position of absolute ruler of existence is a power vacuum that will be filled by someone, and it is almost certainly filled already.

If God isnt in charge, you should be scared of who is. It is a far better thing to have someone who loves us personally and cares about our lives. The alternative is far worse, and something that should worry any thoughtful person. Because if God isn't in charge, and it isn't you and it isn't me; it is going to be someone else. You might not think God is perfect, but again, you love His reality, you just don't want to play by His rules. What you're unwilling to do is take a long hard look at yourself and see that if you are going to be honest about it, the problem is with you and not with Him. You most certainly have some terrific sounding excuses for how you justify rebellion against God, but none of them will match up to your conscience.

>> ^dag:
It's not just about dullness and being boring. Religious zealots confirmed in their beliefs and unswerving in their faith make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. It's kind of like the creepiness of the uncanny valley with robots. "Letting go and letting God" is an abdication of your humanity - and it shows on the outside.
Gay people, in my subjective experience, are often the opposite. Full of quirky, imperfect, damaged humanity - or maybe you could even call it the holy spirit. I think I will.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, firstly, the Kingdom of Heaven is on Earth, so Jesus will be here. When He returns He will judge the world, the living and the dead, and establish His kingdom. Secondly, righteousness is credited to you because of faith in God, not as in something that you earned, or because you're so great. It's all to Gods glory..I'm no better than anyone else.
Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
Three, people have this impression of sin as being fun and cool, and living a sanctified life as being dull and boring. Where ever God is will be the creative center of existence..there isn't going to be a lack of interesting things to do. Everyone seems to like the Creation, and this is just s ahadow of what is to come. It isn't going to be boring. Sin is temporary pleasure, flash in the pan, and it all leads to death, and it is the source of corruption in this world. There is nothing good about it at all.
>> ^dag:
I think I'd prefer to stay down here with the unrighteous. If you're only letting in the self-righteous and pious moralists - it's going to be pretty dull.
I think Jesus would rather stay down here with us too - to be honest. But you go on up with the righteous SB, save us a spot. We'll muddle on without you post-rapture.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So it's my fault you don't have any self-control? It doesn't matter what you think about me personally. The word of God is what is important:
1 Corinthians 6
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
>> ^Payback:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's never going to cease being a sin no matter how you dress it up. It is immoral and against the natural order of the Universe, as ordained by our Creator.

Oh fucking shut up already. No one here cares about your opinion on anything. Seriously.
I really wish the sift would completely remove you from my view when you're set to "ignore". Then I wouldn't be so fucking tempted to pop open your comments like the puss-filled, diseased boils they are.
Fucking troll.

>> ^robv:

horrorshow please


Good call, *horrorshow

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^ant:
yes I am deaf
Not completely deaf, I assume? I'd wonder why you watch so many videos, if so.


Correct. I wear a bone conduction analog hearing aid.

>> ^ant:

yes I am deaf

Not completely deaf, I assume? I'd wonder why you watch so many videos, if so.

I will get back to you on this soon. Some good points to address.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.