Making choices of a higher morality and ethical value definitely makes anyone superior. You yourself are more superior than anyone that has made the choice to beat a woman, are you not? You are physically capable of it, perhaps there might even be a life threatening or survival situation where it's necessary, but you don't do it simply because "you can" or because it makes you feel good. That is what makes you superior.
You're also superior to anyone that has decided to drive drunk too. You are superior to people who take slaves, you are superior to people that run or knowingly buy from sweatshops, etc etc.

Churches and cults are different story because they are based on flawed traditions instead of logical and consequence based choices, and demonstrable fact. Becoming vegan is a rational decision (funnily enough "spiritual" people are the ones that tend to be most aggressive when approached about veganism).

Even non vegans like Sam Harris will agree that it's the ethically superior thing to do.

Three year olds aren't necessarily self-aware either, and I hear that with a bit of south-west sauce they cook up real nice. But wait, you know that's wrong, because being self-aware isn't the only thing we measure this situation by. There are a lot of factors that go into this and in our current time and state of civilization we know it's wrong, however there have been cannibals in the past after all. Sentient or not we know that animals feel pain, they get sad, they can be happy etc. Yet we inflict pain onto them for our pleasure, that is wrong. When you see a street dog all messed up you feel sad for it. Compassion is built into us.

Well yelling at a stranger without provocation is a pretty shitty thing to do. Like I said vegans are a varied group of people, so naturally some of them are rude c***ts that forget that they weren't always vegan lol. I make no excuses for them. But as with any demographic unfortunately the obnoxious ones are the ones that get noticed. To give you an example of nice vegans, there is always someone like John Venus on youtube or the Light Twins.

What insulting ignorance you display with that first statement.
Let's discuss the bay area, where a studio apartment might cost you $1500 a month + utilities. There, even at $15 an hour, you are working 2 1/2 weeks just to put a roof over your head, then there's utilities, food, gas and insurance because you can't live where you work and don't have 4 hours a day to take public transportation, medical expenses, well, you're already FAR over what you make, and living like a monk. Now think about trying to raise a family of 4, even with 2 incomes it can't be done on $15 an hour...it really is an unwinnable struggle even if both parents have 2 full time jobs each.

You make the typical mistake of thinking that minimum wage jobs are all held by people who don't even really need jobs. That's simply 100% wrong. Most are held by adults that can not support themselves, much less have a family on $15 an hour. The amount of minimum wage jobs held by teenagers is only 20%...and that includes those not living at home. The group you describe as the norm is likely far less than 10% of the minimum wage work force.
http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/demographics
Also, you ignore the idea that teens that work and live at home should be able to save money to move out, or for school...but even living at home isn't free (just cheaper, usually) and paying them a wage that leaves nothing for the bank means they can NEVER move out and are only going backwards financially. That's a terrible financial trap to design for our youth, and is a direct cause of people turning to crime as a last resort. EDIT:You also ignore the fact that many if not most teens living at home and working work to support the family, not for their own money, and their income is imperative in keeping the family financially viable.

Yes, it wasn't 'that long ago' that $15 an hour was a decent wage...but it was even more recent when <$.79 gas was the norm, or even high, $.99 cigarettes were expensive, $200 a month rent was average or even high, $25 a month water bill was considered excessive, milk was <$1 a gallon at 7/11, health insurance was well under $100 per month (often <$50 per month)....etc. Inflation has raised the price of most 'necessities' by at least a factor of 5 in the last 25 years, but not wages. Luxury items are just out of the picture for those living on minimum wage, so there's no point mentioning their costs.
Those making $15 an hour ARE ALREADY AT THE BOTTOM TODAY. [ EDIT: As I mentioned above, anyone making less than $22 an hour is making less (in purchase power) than minimum wage as it was originally set, they are all at the 'bottom'.] Yes, they should all get a 'boost' as well if life was fair. Clearly it's not, so it's good to prioritize and focus on those below the bottom first, then work upwards. It's also imperative to work from the top down at the same time, as the outrageous compensation at the top is a big part of how/why companies pay those at the bottom so poorly and claim it's all they can afford. If the CEOs keep taking 95% of the profits, the employees can never be paid 'fairly' or even humanely.

The problem is the GOP as constructed is already the minority party at least nationally. Since 1992, they've won the popular vote once in presidential races. Demographics favor voting blocs that track for Democrats. If the GOP splits into a moderate party and Tea Party, that is the effective end of the GOP, and the Tea Party would also be politically castrated. The people who built the Tea Party understood that the way to gain influence was as an insurrection within the GOP, not as a third party. For the Tea Party, it was a smart move. They've gained massive influence nationally compared to their numbers. But it is a cancer to the Republican Party that they've proven they're completely unable to control.

Every single problem or mistake you've listed is all due to one common thread - there are too many supporters of the GOP that are too radical. Why did McCain pick Palin? He was too moderate for the base, so he needed to up his conservative street creds, and he needed a minority splash to combat Obama being black. Combine those two, and you can't get Olympia Snow or Susan Collins, but you could get to either of them if you drop the "needs to be hard right conservative". Why did McCain move to the right in the first place? The base demanded it.

Why can't Obama do anything right according to no one in the GOP pretty much? Base is too rabid and demands it. Why did Romney shift to the right? Base.

You can blame the party for catering to the extreme too much, but the problem is the extreme makes up so much of what they have for support, they have no choice. Tea Party organizers astutely realized that, radicalized their supporters to threaten to not turn out for moderate candidates, and even to primary challenge even guys like Eric Cantor for compromising too much.

I mean this sincerely - the GOP party leadership is not at fault. Blame the original Tea Party organizers. Blame Tea Party candidates. Blame the media environment for increasingly favoring more radical candidates by creating partisan bubbles to carefully dissimenate information that suites partisan goals. Blame an electorate too stupid and/or apathetic to understand that neither conservative nor liberal ideology solves every problem (which is so painfully obvious that I can prove that in about 5 minutes), so you need to learn about each issue, and use those ideologies to form options, and then choose the one that's more likely to work, regardless of its ideological foundation. Yeah, that actually takes work and critical thinking, but you'll actually solve problems!

But that ain't happening, so it's time to sit back and watch the slow decline of the GOP as it eats itself alive, and Democrats will increasingly win because we'll keep being presented more with GOP candidates a majority of candidates can't stomach, and hope like heck the Democrats nominate at least someone semi-competent for office, because that's pretty much all we got.

I couldn't stomach voting for a single GOP nominee for president since George Bush, Sr. It's gotten worse because I couldn't stomach my choice for VA governor last year either. I had to choose between a batsh1t insane Cuccinelli or political sleeze in McAulliffe, and it was both the fastest choice to make for me, yet I was the least happy about having to make it for McAulliffe.

And just when I thought you couldn't get much lower from the GOP, they're on the doorstep of nominating Trump or Cruz for president of the entire country.

very scientific "experiment" they have here. Little tip: try the Bernie sign in a place that tends towards a trump demographic. Might get something that doesn't support the 'facts' you're pushing.

There's polling that Trump would be neck and neck with Clinton but I think that's baloney and in the general he will get slaughtered since his support base right now is a fairly curated group of the Republican base and in the general he will face tougher questions from the left. The pollsters like Rove already know this and there is some ideas being floated around that the GOP itself may campaign on "vote for a Congress to contain Hilary" rather than even backing Trump.

A big loss would almost certainly trigger some kind of GOP rethink. After McCain's loss the outcome seems to have been to restructure to become more radical and purist, with the Tea Party rise. Since Trump is close enough to a Tea Party candidate the hope is that after a big loss, the Republican party restructures, throws off its extremism and moves towards the center. I think this is inevitable as US youth is highly liberal and minority demographics will eventually determine elections but it may still be some years, maybe a decade before that begins to really matter.

I think the only way parties will ever get squashed is if enough people actually did write in their own choice on the blank line on the ballot. Too many people think they have to vote D or R. they don't

But it would require a majority of voters actually picking the same person, which in turn, would require those same people to see past D vs R. Which isn't happening any time soon.

The aging fox news demographic will eventually die off which will lead to the left eventually becoming dominant, which sure, is the lesser of two evils, but will eventually cause their own problems when left unchecked.

So Mickey Mouse literally has a better chance of winning the presidency than any non-partisan human alive.

Isn't that what they did though? As long as you have a set demographic reacting to videos, couldn't it be argued that you're infringing on their trademark?

Trademarks are much more broad and powerful protection than copyright. They protect your brand and/or logos and slogans. They also protect against things “confusingly similar,” so it’s possible you could be sued for naming your video “Kids have emotions.”

Source:
http://ryanmorrisonlaw.com/attorneys-react-the-fine-bros-react-trademark/

So please explain to me why this lawyer is wrong. And you might want to tone it down a little - you're sounding on par with the worst that reddit has to offer, and disproving the notion that the videosift community is more mature and capable of having a civil conversation.

@newtboy
If it was about safety, they would have illegally immigrated to the multiple neighboring countries

Right, as if you don't know how well fleeing from Germany to neighbours like Poland or France or Italy would have worked out for them... Seriously?

If the Syrians all went to Belgium, installed their own laws and government supplanting the local Belgians', made the Belgians non-citizens, took their lands and properties, pushed them into one small corner ghetto, then complained about how bad the Belgians are...

Are you suggesting that Jews did all this prior to the outbreak of civil war in Palestine? That doesn't reflect reality in any way shape or form.

it was close to 5% before the invasion.

When do you count Jewish immigration to Palestine as becoming an invasion? Palestine was already 8% Jewish by demographics in 1890. That's enough time for almost a 3rd generation to be born by 1940. Slowest, invasion, ever.

The leap was from 1930-1940, with an additional 450k Jewish Palestinians. In that same time the Arab population grew by 420k, so I guess they were both invading???

The alliance of Arab nations that fought them was much SMALLER militarily, you know this.

Right, Israel's initial standing army was 10k, matching Egypt's 10k. But Egypt wasn't the only one in the alliance of course, Jordan had that many as well. Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the remaining alliance members represented another 10k together too. Sure, in hindsight we know they don't jointly commit their entire forces to the task an outnumber the Jewish military 3 to 1. I'm not quite sure how the Jewish people planning a defense were supposed to anticipate that and 'hold back' accordingly.

Honestly, I just can not comprehend what you expect Jewish people fleeing Europe to have done instead. Fleeing to other parts of Europe still left them in Nazi controlled territory and on a train back to Poland. Standing to fight in other European countries meant getting shot at, defeated, and then on a train to Poland. Crossing the ocean was a far sight harder than going to the middle east. Of all the middle east countries, Palestine was the most promising so I find it hard to fault the folks leaving Europe and setting up shop there. Once arrived there, I again find it hard to condemn them for demanding fair treatment and being willing to fight for it.

I said those illegally invading in the 30's had little to flee (unless you are saying they had a time machine and KNEW what was coming).

Mein Kampf was first published in 1925, it had sold nearly a quarter million copies by 1933 when Hitler took power. How could they ever have seen anything bad coming their way I wonder...

i was a tad reluctant to post this video.
not because i didnt find it entertaining,because i did..this dude is off the rails with his passion and his rage,and i adore how he lays it all out.

no...i was reluctant because it is so obvious his bias and narrow interpretation of whats going on to fit his narrative,and i had a genuine anxiety that some of the sift would interpret my posting this as somehow representing MY thoughts on the situation in germany.

i was so unsure i went to a fellow sifter who i admire and respect very much,and who also happens to live in germany to get his take on this video (and if he found it offensive).

which he didn't and even offered up a very detailed opinion,not only on this video but the situation in germany (thanks @radx).

i don't really concern myself too much on if people feel offended.there is someone who will always feel/be offended and if i over-thought every nuance or detail,i probably would never post anything except cute kitten videos.

but the situation in germany is a clusterfuck and people are getting hurt,and i didnt want to come across as callous.

a main driving force why i posted this video is due to so many here in the states that are literally freaking out about 15,000 syrian refugees coming here,and this dude is part of that demographic.

my country has become a gaggle of bed-wetting pussies.

germany:population 85,000,000-refugee population 1,000,000

that is a pretty big damn influx of refugees,and it appears the german government was in no way prepared to assimilate that many refugees (thanks again @radx).

united states of america:population 315,000,000-refugee population (for the first year) 15,000.

and my country literally wet itself over that wee,tiny number.

so we get rants like this xenophobic bed-wetter.twisting the facts to fit his narrative,to feed his childish rage tantrum.

though it is a glorious rage tantrum.
hmmm tasty delicious rage.....

i love this guy.he is sooo pissed and is an absolute rage machine,but i was curious your take on this situation.
is this guy making valid points?
i know that an influx of 1 million refugees in a country with 60 million has to have changed the demographics of germany substantially,but since i am not there and naked ape does have a point in regards to media tap-dancing around the harsh realities.

so i would love your input on this dudes rage induced rant:
http://videosift.com/video/naked-ape-rages-against-the-syrian-refugee-crisis-in-germany

Your video, the untold story of muslim opinions and demographics, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

There are plenty of assholes and pricks. Most you sifters would lump me in with that demographic. But Assholes and pricks are not plotting and killing innocent people around the world.

Also just to keep up up to date the day after the Paris bombing/killings Our President Obama released 5 more Gitmo detainees.
What a dickhead president. Ass Clown in Cheif

I was a 15 year old boy that wore dresses, disliked superhero comics, played in a band, and competed in academics. When I was 30 I started reading superhero comic books (obsessively) but I still wear dresses.

Perhaps one day you will discover your superhero chi. It is never too late.

Deadpool on the other hand is a mostly childish, yet mindbending and fourth wall breaking character that spans the comic book multiverse beyond even Marvel comics, having a direct counterpart in DC that is less wacky, both of which reference each other incognito through narrative.

There's quite a bit of fun science fiction going on simultaneous with the 15 year old boy jargon, based in more than just the silliness of the comics themselves, but the politics of comics writers and artists. Far more interesting than the even more popular Star Wars B.S. happening this Christmas, which I think is a six year old boy demographic.

Wow Marvel is really trying to lock down that 15 year old boy demographic.