I saw what I think, was the older child at one point, over exaggerating his pain.

I believe it was an attempt on his part to end the squabble by showing the younger kid that MORE than enough pain was inflicted, thus making the younger one feel victorious and ending the match.

But then the younger one gave it one last shot as a warning not to mess with him again.

The older one then returned the same message.

As long as it doesn't happen all the time or get out of hand, I think it's important to let the kids feel their emotions and then send them off to military school.

He forgot things like the mask itself, the look and design of it.

He didn't mention the control panel on his chest, that made us wonder if he was human or machine or how much of each.

He didn't mention the Imperial March which framed the dark presence of Vader when he came on screen. Star Wars was the first movie to use a full Soundtrack to emote the feel of everything and control the viewers emotions as they watched...
(Jaws was the first to use the sound in this way, but Star Wars was the first to use the Orchestra.

Sorry Shiny, I posted directly to you rather than quote.

I'm glad someone else saw it at least. The summary of his entire point can applied to literally any topic, as you've pointed out.

Though not surprising after seeing the focus of the channel. It becomes clear he has a bone to pick with religion showing that the argument is formed emotionally rather than logically. I'd rather have seen an argument which was formulated around the bigger picture and applied to various topics than used as a poker to try and stick religion with.

As for the other persons comment on this being a young account, yes it is. Ok?

I'm glad someone else saw it at least. The summary of his entire point can applied to literally any topic, as you've pointed out.

Though not surprising after seeing the focus of the channel. It becomes clear he has a bone to pick with religion showing that the argument is formed emotionally rather than logically. I'd rather have seen an argument which was formulated around the bigger picture and applied to various topics than used as a poker to try and stick religion with.

As for the other persons comment on this being a young account, yes it is. Ok?

Until you've argued that black is white, the sun rises in the west, that we've always been at war with Eastasia, and are perfectly willing to fuck over most of the world for your own self-aggrandizement, you have come nowhere near to sinking to Trump's level.

SHS was politely asked to leave a restaurant because of her role as a willing and eager mouthpiece for policies that physically and emotionally have hurt (at a minimum) thousands of people. That we're equating that with something like gay people being refused service because of who they are says a lot about how skewed our perception of balance is.

People making the civility argument in good faith (i.e., not Fox talking heads) are making it because they actually have a moral compass and know that two wrongs don't make a right.

However, what was done to SHS isn't a wrong--no harm was done to her other than embarrassment, which is exactly what she should be feeling about her role in the world. When people are being terrible, whether it's a child, the president, or one of his enablers, they need to be told politely but firmly that it's not OK.

Think of this less as pouring gasoline on a fire and more like a controlled burn to help control the blaze.

Nope Just a American who see the problem for what it is.
A man deciding not to comply with the police.

Leftest see this a a race issue and will call anyone a A hole who thinks otherwise.

How the left have become so unhinged lately. Leave critical thought to those who can reason and not by those pass judgement from emotional decisions.

@dag Looking at the members who up voted this "kids" sift .
..
Fred Rogers believed the pain that exists in our lives every day is even more difficult to process. For this reason, he kept it real on his show, despite how much of his target audience couldn't even spell "real." In fact, he believed that it was even more important to equip them early on with the tools they needed to navigate life's most treacherous moments.

If you watched his show, you might recall that he covered a wide-range of topics, and many of them involved things that even adults struggle to confront. In one episode of Neighborhood, the prince has gone missing, and people correctly assume that it's because he can't deal with his parents' constant fighting at home. In a story arc that lasts several days, people search for him and, when he is found, a classmate tells him that he had been scared the prince was dead.

You know why that's important, that the prince disappeared because of real reasons and not "evil dragon" ones? Because kids at home probably wondered the same thing when Mr. Rogers and his friends couldn't find the prince. Instead of skirting around the issue, he faced it head on, as he did with many issues on his program, showing children that they can learn to cope with difficult emotions like fear, shame, and anger. He understood that kids might be innocent, but they still needed to understand how to live in the real world. He taught them to be open, brave, and resilient while owning their feelings, which was something they could carry with them for the rest of their lives. It wasn't all sweaters and fish-feeding, you know.
Read More: http://www.grunge.com/

I'm very big on religious freedom, but the depths of emotional exploitation, deceit and manipulation of this entire program should be criminal. We recognize other kinds of con jobs and convict for it, this crew should be too.

Religious freedom should start getting cut off when you preach the necessity of giving the speaker your money in exchange for what they will do for you. Giving to a charity that will go on to help others is one thing, it's another to pay money to get someone to promise you their 'blessing', prayers, or even financial rewards that will metaphysically be manifest in return.

I completely disagree with you about being inspired by her is like being inspired by Hitler. Hitler's philosophy was a complete sham on every level, and contradicts itself numerous times. Objectivism's foundation works well on many levels. Personal aspiration, bettering yourself, valuing logic and knowledge over emotions, those types of things are valuable to an extent.

Objectivism is ultra-logical in the end, very much the same as Social Darwinism. Fundamentally, those ideas have value in some situations and settings. A business for example, in the end, if an employee is not doing his or her job, it's not necessarily the business's job to figure out why unless it's within their self-interest to do so, and they shouldn't have to think that stuff through in every single instance. They should have the flexibility to fire someone in that instance without a second thought about the social ramifications.

It ultimately is a societal problem though that this employee be taken care of as a member of society, which is where Objectivism falls on its face, among other areas. Another one is Objectivism really has terrible implications in many aspects of parenting, to put it mildly.

I was personally inspired by Ayn Rand in high school quite honestly. She made me care about philosophy, about achieving the most I could achieve via hard work and self-determination, to learn how to critically think and use reason, to be OK to not conform necessarily to group think, etc. Just like every ideology, it's not perfect, and following it to a T just doesn't work, just like any other ideology and philosophy we may encounter and blend into our own as we age and grow. But it made me want to learn more, achieve more, and think more.

You can do a lot worse than that, IMO, you know, like Fascism. :-)

Sigh. What a sad day to have to read the likes of you.

I didn't know there was a strict definition. I asked a question and pondered some answers. Oh no! There world is ending. Why do you have to be a continual callow fool about such things? You'll note I didn't jump to google (like others do) to quickly look up a definition (I chose not to). I don't like using google as a false extension of my knowledge like others do. I like to have a good discussion using only the knowledge I have at that instant. But instead we all have to suffer people like you who jump in keyboard blazing "you're wrong on a thing and therefore you're an inferior fucktard who doesn't deserve to be here" instead of going "Actually, there is a strict definition of assault rifle. It's defined as...". Do you see the difference? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need to learn to control your emotions. As an adult you should have learned this by now. You may believe you are communicating effectively but you are not. You are abrasive and abusive to anyone and everyone on far to regular a basis. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you have the introspection to see your flaws.

The most irritating thing about having to point this out is that, now with strict definition in hand (provided by you), I can point out that instead of you telling Digitalfiend there is a strict definition and that "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted (as you should have pointed out), that I have to point it out to him instead.

And yes, I was already familiar with the studies I quoted previously - I have previously researched the topic of gun control in Australia.

"Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?"

Please stop making things up. The second you see what you consider a mistake you jump in with bullshit like this thinking you are going in for the kill. You're laughable and you're making life hard for yourself.

Shotguns aren't rifles? No shit Sherlock. It was an example of where semi-automatic is better. Semi-automatics are better than pump guns. You're dreaming if you think they're even in the same league. Duck hunting is better with a semi-automatic.

The only person who said anything about "Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead" is you. I don't know where you learned to hunt but I learned one shot one kill. And a semi-automatic makes this more efficient (and if you do need a backup shot it comes very quickly). Most pest animals are left to rot. It's too much trouble picking up the carcasses (and often legislated that you must leave them where they drop). If you don't know how to hunt then leave it to the people who do, please (it's so easy to turn your words around).

Trapping, baiting, etc. are others methods that work well in varying circumstances.

Choosing a pump gun over a semi-auto is a beginners mistake. The spread of buckshot or home defense rounds at close quarters is fairly low and you must always aim your firearm properly. In a home defense situation, anyone who is relying on the spread of shotgun pellets to hit their target is a terrible marksman and should consider getting some lessons. You get the same loading sound from a semi-automatic when you let the bolt go forward. I don't know of any data to support the notion that the loading sound scares people away. It has some merit though.

Now, as usual for me I'll be busy for the next 4 months (back at work this morning - I shouldn't even be replying to this but I thought - "hey, I've gotta throw a dog a bone"). I may or may not get to reply to the expected vehemence to come. Have fun howling at the wind. Don't worry, you're views are the immutable truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you're insults are totally the best (snigger).

@noims -- My grandfather had about 10 war stories that he rotated through telling, pretty much exclusively after one of my uncles "broke the dam" by asking him to recall things as they were at the Oshkosh air show standing next to a P-47 airplane like he had worked on.

By the time that happened, my grandfather was in his 80's and in very good physical and mental shape (cattle rancher that did daily work manhandling heavy feed bags around, etc.) but had a quirky personality because he was 90%+ deaf. I don't think that was a result of the war, hearing problems seem to run in the family.

Anyway, he frequently used those hearing problems as an excuse for not having to interact with people. He had hearing aids, but he'd turn them off most of the time and just ignore people. I think some of that was being an introvert, and some was probably lingering "shell shock" / PTSD effects. But overall he really adjusted back to civilian life just fine. Got a degree in education on the GI Bill and taught and coached basketball to High School students, then worked as a small-town Postmaster, and eventually retired to work the ranch. I don't think any of us in his family, including his wife and children, thought of him as being "impaired" by the mental effects of the war. But it was clear that some of what he experienced had a very deep, lifelong effect on his outlook.


I wrote out the 3 stories of his above because they seemed to be the ones that had the most emotional impact on him. To me, it was interesting that a lot of stuff outside of combat hit him the hardest. He also had more traditional "war stories" stuff about victories and bravery, like when his unit captured / accepted the surrender of a young German pilot in a Bf-109 who deserted to avoid near certain death from flying too many missions after the handwriting was on the wall that the allies were going to win. But by far, he got more choked up about the other stuff like having to knock that French girl off her bike and seeing starving civilians and being unable to help them much.

Like you said, more banal stuff side-by-side with or against a backdrop of horror. I think it's pretty much impossible to imagine what those sorts of experiences in war are really like and what being in those situations would do to us mentally. And then WW2 in particular just had a massive impact on the entire generation. Basically everybody back home knew multiple people that went away and never came back. Then when some did come back, they were clearly different and yet reluctant to talk about what happened. Pretty messed up time to live through, I guess.

Your video, Emotional support Peacock turned away by United Airlines, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I like to think that I take a reasoned, understanding look at things. I really try not to do the knee jerk reaction. Often, even if something seems stupid, there’s actually a reason behind it.

But even I think that an "emotional support peacock" is taking the piss.

On my next flight, I will be demanding they allow my emotional support grizzly bear.

But even that will pale in comparison to when they have to build a tank for my emotional support great white shark.

I would guess this is in part the result of the rash of fake emotional support animals (pets in public).
Since likely 90% of "service animals" are really pets with vests and nothing more, and treated as such, those with actual service animals need to understand that the general public has little idea how to act around actual service dogs and have some extra patience. If his animal is trained well, part of that training is to ignore distractions when working. Sure, there's no need to constantly test that, but also no need to freak out if someone talks to your dog in the store.

That said, you also shouldn't engage someone's pet without permission. It's rude and can be dangerous.

This is pretty emotionally seismic to me too