2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Stingray.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by radx. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Hilarious, but a *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/My-code-word-for-taking-the-dog-on-a-walk

Congratulations! Your video, My code word for taking the dog on a walk..., has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 9 Badge!

My dog is part Boarder Collie and part Shepard.
She has the collie's shape and temperament and the Sheppard's colouring.

She can be very hyper, especialy when it's time for a walk.
If she doesn't want to go outside, she lets us know by dropping to the ground just like the dog in the vid.
She loves to play and often includes my grabbing at her while she nips at my hands.
When she does nip, she never bites down - she is amazingly gentle - it's more like a hand hold.

She is amazingly smart. She has never picked up anything that wasn't hers and in a house with kids and toys all over the place, that's quite amazing. If her toy lands to close to child's toy she'll just stand there and wait for you to move it further away.

Our dog absolutely flips-her-wig if you even mention the word "walk", and this is true of a lot of dogs. They know and understand. Our dog takes it a step further. If we spell walk, she still knows and understands. We have to use code-words for "walk". My kids are in charge of inventing a new code-word about every two weeks. She just understands everything we say.

What I am trying to point out is a dog that is excited and playful is not necessarily dangerous to a small child. in fact, I'd trust our dog to watch over an infant with no regrets at all. Some dogs are just amazingly smart while others are amazingly stupid!
>> ^Arkaium:

I've heard collies, through overbreeding, have become an incredibly mediocre breed of dog, due to hyperness.
I'm sure this comment will piss off a ton of collie owners, but this video seems to reinforce that.
Also, what responsible parent lets the dog run free around a child that small like that? Can you talk to the dog and have a conversation about acceptable and unacceptable behavior? Can you predict whether the dog will suddenly snap? No? Then keep it away from your infant!

>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^Stormsinger:
Point one, the fact that you didn't -like- my answer does not mean I didn't answer.
Point two, you sadly underestimate the capabilities of a five year old. They are fully capable of taking actions on their own. That fear you fixate on is -taught- to them by parents that are paranoid about the 1-in-100000 chance of meeting one of those exceedingly rare predators. You're promoting ignoring a real problem for a potential problem. Which is more likely? I'm pretty damned sure that getting lost is -far- more likely than getting the attention of a predator...by at least a hundred to one.
I'm just glad my parents weren't advocates of the ostrich school of child development. You're free to fuck up your kids any way you like...but I fail to see how ignoring the more likely problem is better.
I'm done beating my head against the wall. You're not interesting enough to justify the irritation.

Might I point you towards the thing I was raised on, the Block Parent Program. This program is what most Canadian children are brought up on, it's taught in schools (At about grade 3, you know, around 8 years old) but most kids have already heard about it.
The theory behind it is fantastic, the problem, as I've mentioned before, is that I've seen 3 houses with those signs in them my entire life. I'm not underestimating the capabilities of a 5 year old, I remember my childhood, and I've got two younger siblings. I know all about the capabilities of a 5 year old, and they DON'T want to approach any strangers houses.
I've got stories, they've got stories, hell, even my parents have stories about a time when they were young, got lost, and completely panicked. Not to mention, what are the odds someone's even in the house? Most people don't get off work until 4-5ish, and most kids are home around 3:30. What's to guarantee that the house you go up to has someone in it to call the cops?
Which leads me to another point about both the block parent training, and you're "Idea".. For the block parent program, what happens when you can't find one, or your idea, what happens when a couple houses don't answer the door, or have nobody home.
Your kid panics. Yet another fatal flaw.
I'll refer back to the point that I've been trying to make this entire time, but you don't seem to get this.
You don't - leave - kids - alone. This should never have been an issue, and never should be an issue.
The bus driver was taking care of the kids, the kid should never have needed to be in this situation of not knowing what to do. This is nothing you should need to train your child for.
As for them getting lost.. Where would they get lost? Again, 5 year olds don't go places by themselves. Most kids don't until they're much older. If you go anywhere, you're accompanied by a parent. If you're in the mall and get separated, the parent is the one that instigates getting the child back. And don't bother trying to tell me that a 5 year old will stay calm in a shopping mall full of people, and go to the front counter of a store, or up to the security guards, because they won't. They'll panic, and probably cry.
However, getting picked up by a predator in the mall? That's a horse of a different colour. I was -always- told, that if someone came to pick me up, and it wasn't my parents, they'd know our "code word". If they didn't know it, they were someone that I shouldn't be talking to, and need to get away from them, but that's another discussion entirely.
However, I never said I didn't like your "Training" (Although, I don't, it's a silly idea to tell your kids to approach a strangers house in the first place) but it's not practical.



LOL SHEPPARD YOUR A MORON PLEASE SHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>> ^Stormsinger:
Point one, the fact that you didn't -like- my answer does not mean I didn't answer.
Point two, you sadly underestimate the capabilities of a five year old. They are fully capable of taking actions on their own. That fear you fixate on is -taught- to them by parents that are paranoid about the 1-in-100000 chance of meeting one of those exceedingly rare predators. You're promoting ignoring a real problem for a potential problem. Which is more likely? I'm pretty damned sure that getting lost is -far- more likely than getting the attention of a predator...by at least a hundred to one.
I'm just glad my parents weren't advocates of the ostrich school of child development. You're free to fuck up your kids any way you like...but I fail to see how ignoring the more likely problem is better.
I'm done beating my head against the wall. You're not interesting enough to justify the irritation.


Might I point you towards the thing I was raised on, the Block Parent Program. This program is what most Canadian children are brought up on, it's taught in schools (At about grade 3, you know, around 8 years old) but most kids have already heard about it.

The theory behind it is fantastic, the problem, as I've mentioned before, is that I've seen 3 houses with those signs in them my entire life. I'm not underestimating the capabilities of a 5 year old, I remember my childhood, and I've got two younger siblings. I know all about the capabilities of a 5 year old, and they DON'T want to approach any strangers houses.

I've got stories, they've got stories, hell, even my parents have stories about a time when they were young, got lost, and completely panicked. Not to mention, what are the odds someone's even in the house? Most people don't get off work until 4-5ish, and most kids are home around 3:30. What's to guarantee that the house you go up to has someone in it to call the cops?

Which leads me to another point about both the block parent training, and you're "Idea".. For the block parent program, what happens when you can't find one, or your idea, what happens when a couple houses don't answer the door, or have nobody home.

Your kid panics. Yet another fatal flaw.

I'll refer back to the point that I've been trying to make this entire time, but you don't seem to get this.
You don't - leave - kids - alone. This should never have been an issue, and never should be an issue.
The bus driver was taking care of the kids, the kid should never have needed to be in this situation of not knowing what to do. This is nothing you should need to train your child for.

As for them getting lost.. Where would they get lost? Again, 5 year olds don't go places by themselves. Most kids don't until they're much older. If you go anywhere, you're accompanied by a parent. If you're in the mall and get separated, the parent is the one that instigates getting the child back. And don't bother trying to tell me that a 5 year old will stay calm in a shopping mall full of people, and go to the front counter of a store, or up to the security guards, because they won't. They'll panic, and probably cry.

However, getting picked up by a predator in the mall? That's a horse of a different colour. I was -always- told, that if someone came to pick me up, and it wasn't my parents, they'd know our "code word". If they didn't know it, they were someone that I shouldn't be talking to, and need to get away from them, but that's another discussion entirely.

However, I never said I didn't like your "Training" (Although, I don't, it's a silly idea to tell your kids to approach a strangers house in the first place) but it's not practical.

I think that the premise of the argument is flawed.

Collectivism and individualism are not necessarily at odds.

Making it appear so is an obfuscation of reality, which is the heart of the question, and that question is this: what is the nature of ownership?

The proponents of individualism are only using that concept to justify their tendency to hoard profits and exploit people and resources as they see fit.

They have no problem with “collectivism” as long as that group effort is subservient to their will.

What is a corporation if not a collectivist effort where only a handful of the people profit greatly and the majority of the people profit hardly at all? Where a majority of people are paid only enough to go slowly into debt?

“Individualism” is a code word that corporatists use to keep the working class from organizing for their own benefit.

It's ironic because the most dreadfully conformist people to be found are always in the upper echelons of corporate management.

>> ^MaxWilder:
It just occurred to me that the word "sustainable" will probably replace "green". I think it has more self-evident meaning, and it probably has less political stigma.
Does anyone else think this is happening? Or do you think the two memes will co-exist?


I think that, fundamentally, they are the same thing, except that "green" is sort of a code word and "sustainability" is a little more specific.

And you're a whiney socialist bitch who runs around screaming "code word". "racism", "whaaa" when people point out your bullshit.

>> ^KnivesOut:
Your racism is showing, fuckwit.


Ohhhh...did the term "Banker boy" upset you? I forget that the leftist pigs here get to make and break the rules regarding what can be said and shown...how foolish of me to forget you have a "code word" book to use against those who differ from you. Ok, let's change it to "BankerMan" and give him a yellow cape and glasses. Would that make you feel better and address the issues, douchebag? I think not.

>> ^gtjwkq:
^ Mr. Megarchist, stop looking at Europe and look at Asia, there are currently many countries there enjoying a lot more economic freedom than we do right now

I too would encourage you to look at Asia.

China, Hong Kong, India, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and even places like Israel have publicly funded, compulsory health coverage (and in some, government-run health providers as well).

There's a lot of variation on coverage, privatization of health providers, and the specific policies within the government insurance programs vary quite a bit, but they all have national systems that provide care for everyone, regardless of means.

Don't believe me? Do some googling. I'd start with Wikipedia's page on Universal Health Care, the Asia section.

Ponceleon,

I agree that there is unwarranted namecalling on both sides. However, (the left) changing the definitions of words to suit their purposes to incite their followers, is equally bad. This is the most recent accusation of the right creating a "code word". Perhaps this guy should have spent some time dispelling the "socialist" label instead of just screaming RACIST and punting? But this is how cheap fuel is created for all the media (and websites).

NetRunner,

I had no idea what you meant; was just curious. Thank you for responding.

>> ^gtjwkq:
Liberals don't like to be called socialists, seeing how socialism has been very discredited, even though they borrow many of the socialist delusions about capitalism and the role of government.

You guys just want to make the definition of socialism into something like "anything the government spends money on", and then conflate it with the Soviet Union, and call it discredited.

So, yeah we push back against being called socialist because it has a negative connotation that isn't warranted by the conservatives' redefinition.

>> ^Rotty:
By the way, who are the "we" in THIS case? Care to expose yourself?

I took it upon myself to speak for liberals. Being one, I think I understand the concerns of other people like me. Maybe that's taking a bit too much license, but that's all I meant.

What did you think I meant?