Having owned a Jindo in my life I know how hard it is to train Asian Spitzes. Akida's, Jindo's and Shiba's are all descendants of Asiatic Spitzes, and they are more Wild dogs than domesticated pets. They are incredibly good at hunting and very energetic like the huskies. They are not apartment pets, meaning they need lots of free space to roam around. They are independent minded and get bored of trainings very easily.

For example, if you want to play fetch with them, they'll most likely get bored of the game after two fetches and start playing their own game, like you chasing after them to get the ball back. Same thing with the leash. Once they've escaped the leash they'll start playing 'catch-me-if-you-can' for as long as they want.

Having said all this, this guy in the video must have been one patient man, who gave the dog lots of love to earn its trust to be able to get this much training in. Respect!

Gotta love his enthusiasm, but he's wrong.

There ain't gonna be no revolution tonight.

People are not motivated by problems, they are motivated by solutions. That was the central failing of Occupy. They didn't introduce or even popularise the concept of "the 1% vs the 99%". We all already knew about it. We still know about it, but most people, me included, haven't a fucking clue what to do about it.

If you want to "take the right" to be heard on a topic, then do it.

Me, I have fully descended into cynicism. The problem won't get solved.

No crap. First they move there from Europe and kick out the natives, and then they get all pissy that someone else would move in.

The bigger irony is that the descendents of the people of Judea [who the Israelis claim to be, who are the supposed rightful people of Israel] are actually the Palestinians [today practicing Islam].
The current-day Israeli's themselves are a 50/50 mix of Europeans and Jews from other Arab states that moved there after the partition of Palestine post WW2 [committed by the U.K.].

The true home of many Israeli's is Europe, in the countries that turned on them in WW2. But at the time, it was easier to ship out than to go home and say hi to the neighbors that quite happily sold one out to the nazis (they weren't exactly popular, not just in Germany. As disliked as the Nazis were, their attitude towards Jews was not unique). It's surreal how the cycle of violence repeats itself.

I want to roll my eyes every time someone says "thousand year conflict"... when it's more like 65 years.

-scheherazade

Not so, slavery in the U.S. was historically unique in it's brutality and scope and the descendants of slaves live in another form of subjugation under the guise of rights under the law and equality. The system in place now insures that black people in the U.S. will be treated to inordinate scrutiny as citizens and extraordinary rendition in the form of profiling, imprisonment both physically or economically, and an unsurpassed recidivism in the Petri dish of criminals which is, the U.S. Prison Corporation, ltd., which only serves to justify more prisons to warehouse undesirables.

Except for perhaps Chinese dynasties during the construction of the wall other examples of slavery in history, even biblical slavery...Rome, Greece, these societies did not treat their slaves to the hopelessness we in America treated the Africans to.

If you consider slavery 'wrong' you might want to look at how well maintained your own existence has become-Slavery has simply become your indentured duty to invisible masters as you pay-to-play the game of life.
The slave masters of today do not carry whips or pistols but he still works you for long, unending hours and enjoys the fruits of your labor at day's end.

spiderman one would have been better. Drop some dude off a descender line

With that in mind here's a list of people that make me variously: scared, uncomfortable, upset and sometimes outright angry. I find it deeply unpleasant and sometimes disturbing to have to deal with them and I think life would be a lot better if we just locked them away.

Police
Politicians
Pro-lifers
Anyone who watches X-factor
Anyone who doesn't think the British royal family are murderous tyrants.
People who play music on their phone speakers on the bus/walking down the street.
People that use the term "free country" without irony.
The unregulated hyper rich over class.
Rugby players on a night out drinking.
People that advocate the death penalty.
Hyper nationalists.
Xenophobes, Racists and Homophobes.
The priesthood of amen/the brotherhood of shadow.
Young people in tracksuits/hoodies.
Anyone that uses the word "party" as a verb.
Practising Christians, Muslims and Jews (doubly so if they are raising their children religiously).
Hyper-Atheists.
Chimpanzees! (seriously, fuck the chimps they scare the shit out of me)
People that use the phrase "I just don't give a fuck" and actually mean it.
The Chinese scientists developing the "death robots" (you might laugh now....)

Whilst some are clearly more serious than others, all of the above represent things/traits which deeply concern me. Many of the people on that list I'd label as outright insane and/or seriously dangerous to my health and well being.

Some, were I to be confronted by them unexpectedly, would outright terrify me, much more so than that lady. There's a good chance that by simply responding with concern and a lack of antagonism she could have been talked down, but certainly pulling an incredulous expression and calling her a crazy lady is not likely to diffuse the situation one iota.

As I said before maybe she is a genuine danger to herself and others, such people do exist and there are systems in place to try and deal with it.

The issue here is that your not even remotely in a position to make that diagnosis, nor are any of us here. We don't know how serious her condition is or how likely she is to respond to various forms of treatment. Speculating based only on video's made during episodes (i.e. at her worst) with no context of her medical history just fuels the kind of knee jerk "lock them away" mindset that contributes heavily to these poor bastards getting the way they are in the 1st place.

For all you know a bit of in the community C.B.T. and mentoring might be all she needs/needed. Not everyone displaying psychotic symptoms benefits from or warrants full on institutional incarceration, it often makes things much worse.
She clearly needs/needed further investigation and perhaps having the benefit of her medical history and first hand interaction it might be reasonable to conclude that some form of isolation is needed. But I'd rather leave that down to those who are professionally qualified to make that judgement than bystanders who merely witnessed a few isolated psychotic episodes and know sweet F.A. about her as a person.

It's you that's failing to see the bigger picture here. You want to put her in a neat little box marked "crazy" so you don't have to face the implication that in some fundamental sense you are the same thing. The crazy person sits next to you on the bus and you think "I don't deserve to have to put up with this inconvenience. How dare they make me feel uncomfortable".......

....Do you have the remotest idea of the kind of deep lasting damage that does to a person when virtually everyone they ever meet thinks and behaves that way? How it feels for someone to just condemn you to be locked away without even attempting to understand what your all about?

It's only about 50 years ago that it was standard practice to basically label everything as just various forms of "madness" and lock them all away in the same building. While we've come along way there's still very much a ways to go and the public perception of acute psychotic illnesses is by far the most backwards.

If you'd said maybe she might need institutional treatment, or that you had concerns that the behaviour she displays could escalate to a violent incident (both legitimate concerns) then I wouldn't have reacted with such hostility.
But you didn't do that, you outright declared she that must be forcibly segregated and treated and moreover that she is definitely a danger to herself and others. No grey area, isolation is the only alternative!

I don't want this to descend into a personal attack, you might after all be a really nice person and this is a deeply rooted prejudice common to most people I come across. Much like many peoples homophobia isn't especially malicious it's just an unchallenged social convention (one fortunately that is changing).
But malicious or not the damage done is the same, for crazies, ethnic minorities and homosexuals alike. And I don't think its unfair to say that the "crazies" are the more vulnerable group by quite some margin.

You don't begrudge offering a little time and understanding for say a disabled person holding you up in a door way, why is taking a little step back when confronted with a "crazy" person so different? That postie clearly recognised she wasn't occupying the same reality as himself very quickly, but his response is to pull a face that says "what the fuck is your problem?" and just dismisses her as crazy. She might have calmed down and gone away peacefully in the space of a few mins if he'd tried to diffuse it, but he didn't, he escalated immediately. (because he's mentally ill too, just in a different way)
That's basically like someone getting in your way, you realizing its because they are in a wheel chair and then treating them like an arsehole because they had the indecency to be out in public and get in the way of the able bodied people! Those bloody cripples, they should be taken away for their own protection! (the fact the rest of us don't have to worry about dealing with them any more is just a bonus naturally )

Now obviously this is a somewhat flawed analogy as people with mobility impairments don't have heightened rates/likelihood of violent outbursts (though I'm sure there are plenty twats who just happen to be in wheelchairs). But the fundamental point I'm trying to make about how people treat the extravertly mentally ill stands. If your being directly threatened with no provocation is one thing, but this guy isn't he's just antagonising someone in a clear state of paranoia and delusion/misunderstanding (which he recognises within seconds). He doesn't even attempt to address that he just closes off and becomes passively hostile.
As I said before its understandable, but only in the same way as being frightened of homosexuality, alien cultures, physical disfigurement etc.. It's just cultural isolation, get to know a few people from any of those groups and it quickly starts to sublime into respect and understanding.

She didn't walk up to him screaming she walked up and firmly presented an accusation that the postman knew could not possibly have been true. She became aggressive/shouty only after he became dismissive, before that she was only restless and paranoid. And even then she didn't make any aggressive physical moves we can see. Postie doesn't look at all in fear for his safety to me, he turns his back on her several times and barely maintains eye contact, not the behaviour of someone that feels physically threatened!

How might she have reacted if postie had looked genuinely scared? Maybe she'd have backed off? Changed her attitude? And yeh maybe she'd have got even more threatening or attacked him with a stick too.

We don't know what she'd have done because we don't know her or anything about her other than a few paranoid videos on the internet. Leave the judgements to the people that have done the research, interviews etc. and know know what the fuck they are talking about with regards to this lady's condition and best treatment.

Speculation is one thing, outright declarations of fact is quite another. People are not guilty before you can prove their innocence...

Logic. I love it.
One can use nearly the same argument using patriotism instead of religion. It goes like this...if you believe the USA is the best country to live in and most of Africa is torturously bad, then the net effect of slavery is positive (at least for the descendants of the slaves). Without "hell" as the only alternative to forced conversion through slavery, the patriotic argument falls a little flatter but still has a point to make.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not making that argument, I think it ignores most of the problems with slavery in favor of over simplification (and ignores all those slaves that didn't survive to be converted or have converted children). I'm simply stating that others could make that argument. They are both just 'ends justify the means' arguments, which I usually disagree with.

Interesting. I've got a semi-relevant story, but I get long winded so feel free to skip to the next comments if you like.

My wife (Thai) and I (American) had our first daughter this year. When she first got pregnant, one of the doc's first priorities was to get us both tested for "Thalassemia", which I had never heard of before. Apparently it is a blood disorder that affects hemoglobin production and therefore red blood cells -- if both parents carry the (rather rare) recessive gene, it can be a pretty bad deal.

It turned out that my wife is in the 1% or so of Thais that carry the gene (but she doesn't express / suffer from it, it is recessive and she has the dominant gene also). I had to get tested as well, but they said it would be incredibly unlikely that I'd be positive and I wasn't. So, our daughter has a 25% chance of being a carrier like my wife but zero chance of suffering from the effects of it.

Anyway, I was curious about the disease and asked the doc why it is a big deal here (every pregnant couple MUST get screened for it here when getting hospital/prenatal care) but I'd never even heard of it in the US. It turns out that the disease / genetic mutation arose only in places with high rates of malaria. As it happens, the genetic effect on your blood cells that the mutation has makes you more resistant to malaria -- full-on exhibitors of it (two recessive genes) are far less likely to die of malaria than people that don't have the gene. That is, assuming that you don't have the extreme variants of it that make it very unlikely to survive early childhood. Basically, if you have the disease and yet are healthy enough to survive to adulthood, you're close to malaria immune (that's overstating it, but ballpark). The malaria parasite can't survive and reproduce properly on your funky Thalassemia-affected red blood cells.

I thought that was a pretty interesting evolutionary response that must have arisen from some populations being pretty much decimated by malaria back in pre-recorded history. Current carriers like my wife are probably the descendants of lucky folks that survived a deadly outbreak in history by virtue of having a disease/mutation that is, under normal circumstances, slightly or even extremely bad in species survival / reproductive fitness terms. I thought that was kinda cool -- but I'm glad that neither my wife nor my daughter are/can be full-on expressors of the gene.

I don't think we need a moderator either. If someone is egregiously and personally attacking someone, they can get temporarily or permanently banned by our Benevolent Dictator @dag. Some folks don't like that, but I think it is why the Sift is such a grand place -- the trolls are moderated and if they DON'T self censor, out they go. That doesn't bother me in the least (even though I miss Bone, I get why he is gone.)

What bothers me -- and I have started to write this a couple of times, but I SELF CENSORED -- is when these long "discussions" devolve to essentially two people going back and forth. It ceases to be about the particular video, and becomes about the two Sifters. Nothing wrong with the exchange, but why can't they move it to their personal profiles? Anyone who wants to follow it, can.

But I have learned here on the Sift to never ask anyone to do anything, because all of Holy Hell will descend upon my head, and I will be accused of a host of sins for making a request.

So no request here. Just a suggestion that maybe if you find yourself in a duo-logue (or dueling monologues?), you might consider just sliding over to your personal page.

Or not. Whatever. It's just pixels.

I love Futurama, but I rather see it stop now then descend into mediocrity like's it's yellow skinned cousin.

Things should be allowed to die gracefully.

I wouldn't say anything, I don't think that it would be particularly effective. We all have our own idea of what morality is, and Stalin's is a very complex result of innumerable factors like upbringing, disposition and circumstance, and it would be a bit self important of me to think that I could argue that out of him. He lived, acted, died and left his mark on history. The paremeters set forth by the physical world and the collective actions of everyone else who has lived either as a contemporary or since has judged which of those actions have value and will live on. It's a messy process, certainly, but it's just how things work.

In other words, you don't have any argument as to why Stalin should adopt your morality and abandon his own. If you do I invite you to post it here. How can you escape Ravi's charge that atheism is incoherent in the absence of any such argument?

Thankfully, we seem to be heading in a direction that diverges considerably from that Stalin would espouse. I think that a certain evolutionary tendency towards beneficial collectivism is responsible for that.

Mind you that I'm not arguing for a one world government here, but rather I think that a sense of connection and personal responsibility for the wellbeing of everything else on this planet, ecosystem and all, will bode well for how I and my descendants experience this thing we call life.

It's only one of many competing survival strategies, and nothing more.

So if Hitler had won and the world was in the grips of his totalitarian regime, this would just a particular evolutionary tendency playing out? What makes one better than the other?

"Do you believe that there has ever been a case where slavery has been justified, and do you believe that there has ever been a good reason for anyone to butcher a toddler with a sword?"

Why is it wrong to do either of those things?

Wrong, my question is in no way off topic and implying otherwise may be easier for you, but it won't do much to convince anyone. We are discussing the incoherence of atheism relative to the superior coherence of Christianity as it pertains to systems of morality. Therefore any question regarding the efficacy of a Judeo-Christian theistic moral compass is entirely relevant.

So my question remains, but I'll answer yours because it too is relevant:

I wouldn't say anything, I don't think that it would be particularly effective. We all have our own idea of what morality is, and Stalin's is a very complex result of innumerable factors like upbringing, disposition and circumstance, and it would be a bit self important of me to think that I could argue that out of him. He lived, acted, died and left his mark on history. The paremeters set forth by the physical world and the collective actions of everyone else who has lived either as a contemporary or since has judged which of those actions have value and will live on. It's a messy process, certainly, but it's just how things work.

Thankfully, we seem to be heading in a direction that diverges considerably from that Stalin would espouse. I think that a certain evolutionary tendency towards beneficial collectivism is responsible for that.

Mind you that I'm not arguing for a one world government here, but rather I think that a sense of connection and personal responsibility for the wellbeing of everything else on this planet, ecosystem and all, will bode well for how I and my descendants experience this thing we call life.

It's only one of many competing survival strategies, and nothing more.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question

Does this mean we are on the far side of the uncanny valley?

Soon, anyone can make a mock up video of any situation, and present it as a possible truth. At that point, no video will be truth. Disbelief will be so overwhelming, we'll descend into chaos, or be enslaved. Considering man's comfort with being dominated, it'll likely be the latter.

I for one welcome our new virtual demi-god overlords!

No voodoo involved, friend. I have learned that the human body has an amazing capacity to heal given the right environment. I did away with processed foods, made sure the bulk of my diet was plant-based, and supplemented as necessary. It's not homeopathy. It's science. My friend Richard raised a healthy family and taught me to be healthy myself. I realized that my poor health was a result of bad dietary choices and that I didn't have to be a slave to medication for the rest of my life.

If you want to see some remarkable turn-arounds, just Google some of the names I mentioned above and read what is taking place in the medical field as it pertains to diet. There is a revolution afoot.

The problem is this: it is difficult to change a lifestyle after many years of physical and mental investment. So, people don't want to do it. When I asked my Dr. if anyone ever gets off the blood pressure medication once he puts them on, he said, "No, they don't want to work that hard." And that, in a nutshell, is why our hospitals are full of people who have diet related illnesses. People are trapped in their bad decisions. They are sick from eating the stuff they eat, they go to the doctors to get medicine to suppress the symptoms so they can go back out and continue to eat the very thing that got them sick in the first place.

OK, I've said too much already. Like I said above, I don't like talking about this publicly because it descends into "well, that's anecdotal," or "where are the stats?" With a bit of research you find that the stats are there and I am just one of many examples of living proof.

Peace.

Let me help you reconcile these points:

One is both common sense and likely to lead to our children and descendants having the chance to live happily in their time.

The other is narcissitic infanticide, sacrificing the unborn's chance for peace to the current individual's cowardly failure to accept the obvious realities of existence.

Think of it like all those thousands of child rape victims of the Catholic Church: is it better they scream and weep in dark corners so weak housewives can continue to find 'solice' in the Roman policitian with the giant hat? Should jewish & muslim children be forcibly genitally mutiliated for the mental delusions of their parents?

Only a religious or psychotic person would even dare pontificate over how to reconcile these questions.
For the rest of us it's so, so easy: stop wrecking the planet and raping the kids.