search results matching tag: disorder

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (210)     Sift Talk (13)     Blogs (9)     Comments (820)   

Yanny or Laurel

eric3579 jokingly says...

Dissociative Identity Disorder. Go to the doctor immediately. You're BROKEN!

Buck said:

I listened 3 times, heard yanni.
I waited awhile (5 min) read some stuff, listened again - laurel!!!!

I cannot hear yanni anymore, but I DID!? same speakers for both.

Scooby doo papa

Man saws his AR15 in half in support of gun control

newtboy jokingly says...

You have inner city gang killings that no RACIST cares about.
Thousand of minority youths murdered yearly and no RACISTS care.
(Of course, there is the BLM movement that does care, and one political party that at least tries to address the issue, albeit without success against their opponents.)

You have ALL KIDS OF people killing children at schools and now we must ban CERTAIN MILITARY STYLE guns. (labeling all murderers as mental is convenient, but not honest in the least, they don't go to mental hospitals, they go to prison. Being an angry teen is not a mental disorder, it's the norm)
8000+ murdered / year and Republicans say there's no need at all for any kind of gun control anywhere, indeed they say it should be easier to get and carry a concealed gun anywhere (besides inside congress).

When representatives stop being bought and blackmailed by the NRA and instead work for Americans, then may be we can address the issue.

FTFY

bobknight33 said:

You have inner city gang killings that no one cares about.
Thousand youths murdered yearly and no one cares.



You have mental people killing children at schools and now we must ban guns.
50 murdered / year and all hell breaks loose for gun control.


When American stop being two faced then may be we can address the issue.

Vox S1E24: The awkward debate around Trump's mental fitness

Jinx says...

Eh... he could get diagnosed with almost any disorder you can name and his base would still all be like "he my kinda crazy". Wonder if there is a diagnosis for that sort of delusion.

Slowest Checker ever

How Not to Do Brownies

newtboy says...

Rule 6: know what drug(s) you are taking.
I'm pretty certain this was not just marijuana. As a person who has ingested over an oz of AAA quality marijuana in a single sitting, I will confidently say there was something else in those brownies to have this effect....unless he has a mental disorder. This is not a normal reaction to excess thc. I expect he unintentionally just got wet (pcp).

This kid tried to quit band, teacher had other plans

JiggaJonson says...

I cried. Idk if I ever said anything here, but I've been only on occasionally because I had a daughter born with a rare genetic disorder that my wife and I both carried recessively.

It's called NPC which is an acronym for Niemann-Pick Disease Type C (it also makes it annoyingly difficult to search for because I get all kinds of results about non player characters).
http://nnpdf.org/overview/#NPC

The disease itself is fairly horrifying. That sounds like strong language, but click on this link to see the progression of the disease if you too want to cry: http://nnpdf.org/the-disease/the-progression-of-niemann-pick-disease/

Fortunately, we're part of an experiment that is treating people with a very promising success rate for halting the progression of symptoms.

*promote

Machiavelli's Advice for Nice People

scheherazade says...

The examples in this video (picture wise) are bad.

A big point in 'the prince' was that one needs to appear as a good person, regardless of whether or not you are or are not good.

Hence the best examples would be people who were perceived as virtuous, when they behind the scenes were sometimes not [when they needed to be not virtuous in order to achieve their goals].

Showing plenty of examples of people historically perceived as villains, is actually not the point. In fact, Machiavelli makes a point of how being perceived as bad runs a high risk of ending your reign.

One example in the book is of a ruler who assigns a man to ruthlessly crush disorder in a city. The man ruthlessly crushes disorder, and earns the hatred of the citizens. The ruler comes to the city, kills the man (cuts off his head and takes it out to show people), and claims to have liberated the people from this abusive man. In doing so, he both swiftly eliminates the disorder, demonstrates his authority, and ends up appearing as the good guy (one who cares for the suffering of the people and earns the people's appreciation).




The prince is a historical case study of different rulers throughout history, their circumstances, their intentions, their actions, and their success/failure, and what functional elements interconnected these factors. It's a game theory analysis for monarchs. Primarily technical (morality outside of its scope, morality being neither promoted nor admonished).

(The prince was not Machiavelli's personal opinion of how one should act - he personally preferred virtue and the republic. Personal preference was not the point of 'the prince'.)

-scheherazade

Bill Maher - Milo Yiannopoulos Interview

newtboy says...

I've known many 14 year olds, male and female, that had not reached full puberty, I was one. Some had not even started it. I admit, he did say he thought the law had set the 'line' at the right place, but went on to say that many 14 year olds and even younger were fully prepared for sex with adults and at least implied that it would not be immoral to have sex with them, just illegal. He didn't say how one would determine which were ready and which weren't that I heard....I guess trial and error.

Language is alive, and the meanings of words change, like it or not. When the common usage is so common that the actual definition is almost never what's meant when using the word, it's time to amend the definition. That's different from one generation who misuses language constantly out of laziness in their thought processes...most educated people at least know what literally means, even if they accidentally misuse the word more and more often.
Common usage today of "pedophile" is not limited to pre-pubescent, it includes mid-pubescent...in fact Merriam Webster's primary definition uses the word "children" as does the medical definition lower on their page.
The top googled legal definition is listed as...
Pedophile Definition: A medical condition causing a sexual preference for young children. ... A person afflicted with a serious mental disorder, a mental abnormality known as pedophilia, a sexual perversion in which children are preferred as sexual partner.

I think any of those definitions would/should include many if not all 14 year olds in most people's minds.

...but I don't mean to say that you aren't technically correct, the best kind of correct. ;-)

greatgooglymoogly said:

Most Americans literally can't use the word literally right to save their lives. That doesn't change the actual meaning of the word. Same with pedophilia. Males are biologically programmed to be attracted to girls who have reached puberty, it is not a psychological disorder to be aroused by a 14 yr old in a bikini. It is for a 10 year old. If that impulse is acted upon, one is an antisocial pervert, the other is mentally defective.

Bill Maher - Milo Yiannopoulos Interview

greatgooglymoogly says...

Most Americans literally can't use the word literally right to save their lives. That doesn't change the actual meaning of the word. Same with pedophilia. Males are biologically programmed to be attracted to girls who have reached puberty, it is not a psychological disorder to be aroused by a 14 yr old in a bikini. It is for a 10 year old. If that impulse is acted upon, one is an antisocial pervert, the other is mentally defective.

Can Trump read?

bobknight33 says...

If this is true -- which seems fair to say by looking at this ---- WOW FUCK

But then I ask how can this bee if he got an economics degree from Wharton. No small feat.

Plus as a kid he was on the NY military academy During his senior year attained the rank of captain.


That all said It wold seem that he could read... not necessarily guarantee it


Reading Statistics

Total percent of U.S. population that has specific reading disorders 15%

Total percentage of U.S. adults who are unable to read an 8th grade level book 50%

Total amount of words read annually by a person who reads 15 minutes a day 1 million

Total percent of U.S. high school graduates who will never read a book after high school 33%

Total percentage of college students who will never read another book after they graduate 42%

Total percentage of U.S. families who did not buy a book this year 80%



Total percentage of books started that aren’t read to completion 57%

Total percent of U.S. students that are dyslexic 15%
Total percentage of NASA employees that are dyslexic 50%
Total number of U.S. inmates that are literate 15%

Brilliant Accidents

How the Gun Industry Sells Self-Defense | The New Yorker

Mordhaus says...

When I got mine, I had to get 2 passport photos, submit a fingerprint, take a day long class, take a written test, and pass a range test with my preferred CCW handgun. There are a bunch of other restrictions which I'll list below; not all states have these but Texas is one of the easiest states to get licensed in, so this should give you an idea for a baseline. When it comes to 'may issue' states like the ones I listed earlier, they have the same hoops to jump through generally, but the main one is you have to prove good cause to a police entity to carry. In many cases, those entities are either 'suggested' or blatantly told "Do not give out any permits". I suppose power or money could get around that, but you would still have to pass the other requirements.

Texas CCW pre-reqs:

A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:

is a legal resident of this state for the six month period preceding the date of application,

is at least 21 years of age (military 18 - 21 years of age now eligible - 2005 Texas CHL Law change),

has not been convicted of a felony,

is not currently charged with the commission of a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Sec. 42.01 of the penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is not a fugitive from justice for a felony, Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense,

is not a chemically dependant person (a person with two convictions within the ten year period preceding the date of application for offenses (Class B or greater) involving the use of alcohol or a controlled substance is ineligible as a chemically dependant person. Other evidence of chemical dependency may also make an individual ineligible for a CHL),

is not incapable of exercizing sound judgement with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun,

has not, in the five years preceding the application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or equivalent offense, or an offense under Section 42.01 of the Penal Code (Disorderly Conduct) or equivalent offense,

is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to purchase a handgun,

has not been finally determined to be delinquent in making child support administered or collected by the attorney general,
has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, state treasurer, tax collector of a policital subdivision, Alcohol Beverage Commission or any other agency or subdivision,

is not currently restricted under a court protective order subject to a restraining order affecting a spousal relationship,

has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law in the grade of felony,

has not made any material misrepresentation, or failed to disclose any material fact, in an application submitted pursuant to Section 411.174 or in a request for application submitted pursuant to Section 411.175.

P.S. if you screw up on any of the above 'after' you get your ccw, it gets suspended until you go before a board for review. My instructor said when I took the class, almost every single review case is denied.

dannym3141 said:

Having a big gun on display makes yourself a great target if you're ever in a situation that might need it, so you could argue that concealing it is the most sensible option if we agree that someone should carry one in the first place.

There are probably some really skilled and intelligent ex-policemen, ex-army and other exceptional people that would make the world a safer place if we trusted to carry a gun around.

@Mordhaus how trustworthy is the system that decides who gets one? At any point do good connections, family friends or money help decide who gets one? I've met/known of some people who claim to have concealed carry, but I don't know what state they were from or if the law is different between them. They had some pretty prejudiced ideas and rigid attitudes that made me wonder if they were really the most trustworthy people.

How LSD and Shrooms could help w/ Mental Health disorders

shagen454 says...

I've never really found LSD that useful in any way to be honest. Shrooms (psilocybin) are a form of DMT (4-HO-DMT). For both experience and medical reasons, DMT or ayahuasca & Iboga are the two that are the most promising. Both ayahuasca & iboga have been used to overcome addictions and mental disorders and the experiences they contain are nearly in a whole other ballpark from all other types of "drugs". It'll probably take another 50 years for the establishments to admit to their health benefits or that they should be studying how they interact with the brain. Anyone who has experienced them knows it's going to take science a long fucking time into the future to only sort of understand.

Most Lives Matter | Full Frontal with Samantha Bee

newtboy says...

It's not fully a joke.
I honestly think people not willing to examine their beliefs in the face of new contradictory evidence need to be removed from those actually willing to learn in order for us to evolve as a species/civilization...but that evolution is probably over now. I don't actually advocate killing, sterilizing, or even removing them, I do advocate teaching them, by force if necessary, or removing some privileges. Lucky for everyone (including me) I'm not in charge.
I do wish there was a way to identify them and bar them from teaching, voting, or governing, or any other activity where their solidified beliefs might tend to negatively impact others, but they are not easily identified.
I think it's a mental disorder to believe something so strongly that you can't even try to consider new information or even consider that your belief is possibly wrong. I would like to see that disorder eradicated in my lifetime. I'm willing to change my opinion if presented with incontrovertible evidence that I'm wrong, though. ;-)
I'm not angry with ignorance, ignorance is forgivable and curable...I'm angry with ignorance masquerading as certitude, which is what people who say truthfully that nothing could ever change their mind (about any topic) are displaying.

As for your above example of torture, what if you were shown incontrovertible proof that it's not only effective, but is (somehow, this is hypothetical) MORAL, and is suddenly found to be acceptable to 99.999% of society due to this new evidence? Would you at least CONSIDER that your position might be wrong? If so, you can stay in society and you don't have to be fixed. ;-)

SDGundamX said:

@newtboy
@ChaosEngine

It's incredibly chilling to me that your comments got any upvotes at all. Yeah, I get it's a joke. But in the current political climate where people (i.e. Trump and his frighteningly large number of supporters) are actually talking about walling off an entire nation to keep out "undesirables" and killing the relatives of terrorists in some misguided attempt at revenge, it's a joke in poor taste.

Furthermore the anger behind the joke (and there is clearly anger since you guys are joking about sterilizing and killing people) is misguided as well--you put a camera in front of any political supporter and try to goad them into saying something that is clearly in direct opposition to what their party's line is and you're going to get a bullshit answer, regardless of whether you're interviewing a Democratic or Republican.

On that note, it would be interesting to see this same bit at the DNC with the reporter asking questions about gun control and the NRA--I'm sure you'd get some great clips of people being uninformed and stubbornly resistant to facts as well. And make no mistake-- what we're seeing here are the "best of" clips that some editor picked out to show Republicans in the worst possible light. I would really love to see the raw footage and see how the people they chose not to show on TV reacted during the interviews.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon