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

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/French-game-shows-BETTER-than-Japanese-game-shows

Holy shit that is FUCKING AWESOME!

Japanese game shows just got put on NOTICE!

@spoco2

Anything worth watching gets canceled or threatened anymore. And they wonder why they have trouble keeping certain demographics when they only keep the teen-angst drama stuff, CSI, and game shows.

Ever notice they also have big surges of similar TV shows debuted every year? One year it's lots of cop shows. Next year it's medical. I've always wondered why they don't try .....alternative their releases so they aren't all putting out the same "new" themed shows.

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

>> ^bareboards2:
You have excellent taste, as always. This originally made number one!
dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Girl-Gets-Answer-Very-Wrong


Thanks for catching it! I was wondering why it wasn't getting more votes!

You've apparently missed all those Russian driving videos or ANY Japanese game show. Or almost every single press release from Vatican City. I could seriously go on all night. But you get my point.

>> ^Dread:

>> ^deathcow:
>> ^G-bar:
im just flabbergasted at how the U.S. is an empire with a population such as this...


Yeah ALL Americans are like this, and NOBODY from other countries, weird eh

It is strange that the vast majority of videos demonstrating the intellectually challenged and their points of view tend to originate from the good old U.S. of A. Perhaps it has something to do with a lack of educational funding over the past few decades, or a complete disregard for quality education and a belief that education can be formed around some mythological views.
I guess every village has its idiot(s)... I lost my village a long time ago

OK...OK...

This is kind of weird, but I've been meaning to ask you for a while (in fact, I might have already asked you this and been so high or something that I don;t remember).

So, when I was around twelve or so, in 1992, I went to an O.M.S.I. camp in central Oregon down by the South Sister. There was a kid there with me, who's name I don't remember, who first introduced me to Duckman via the original comic. When teh camp was over, I bought the comic from him for ten bucks or something and I still have it to this day.

By any crazy, astronomical-chance-in-hell, could that have possibly been you?
In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Cool, I live in Springfield actually but I just met a girl that lives up there, so who knows what the future holds. : I'd definitely go up for a siftup though if one happens to occur.

In reply to this comment by Ryjkyj:
Just moved back a couple years ago. That's one more person for the inevitable Pacific NW siftup... that will happen someday... maybe.
In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
This guy is a regular on the Portland Trailblazers after the game show called "Talkin' Ball". Never thought he was very funny. But now I can see why, he can't cut loose on that show like he can here.

P.S. Didn't know you lived in P-town Ryjkyj.

Just moved back a couple years ago. That's one more person for the inevitable Pacific NW siftup... that will happen someday... maybe.
In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
This guy is a regular on the Portland Trailblazers after the game show called "Talkin' Ball". Never thought he was very funny. But now I can see why, he can't cut loose on that show like he can here.

P.S. Didn't know you lived in P-town Ryjkyj.

This guy is a regular on the Portland Trailblazers after the game show called "Talkin' Ball". Never thought he was very funny. But now I can see why, he can't cut loose on that show like he can here.

P.S. Didn't know you lived in P-town Ryjkyj.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'laugh, gamne show, crack up' to 'laugh, game show, crack up' - edited by Fusionaut

Won't work if both people follow your logic.

>> ^RedSky:

Lol, last time this show got posted I suggested the exact same idea.
>> ^RedSky:
Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.


>> ^RedSky:
@direpickle
I admit the idea does hinge on being able to convince the other fully of your actions, but if you can, then you'll effectively have changed their payoff to steal = nothing, share = possibility of something. If you can see you've evidently convinced them, you could even pull a fast one and instead choose to share thus saving you time and effort! I guess it's kind of contradictory to effectively act benevolent through authority but in a limited case like this, where you can reduce the uncertainty of an undesirable outcome considerably, I think it's fully worth it.

I don't think I would go as far as saying to steal is morally the best choice, but rationally the stronger choice. If 2 gods incapable of lying were on staged, and promised to share, that is the most moral position. Well actually, IMO, 2 people that CAN choose to lie deciding not to is more morally pretty, so 2 humans choosing share because they want to do the right thing is the best moral outcome, and also the hardest to achieve. And to that end, your suggesting that stealing becomes more moral starts to gain a little traction in real world human transactions, but it only works if you can get people to act in a certain way...so it is morally dependent on the actions of other people, which is not a good place for your morality. All it takes is a type person Rorschach, a moral high grounder whom wants to punish injustice to ruin the plan, as in the movie version of watchmen. The conflict of justice with fairness makes a TRUE solution imposible to have. This is one of the moral problems that lead me away from my faith, Justice and Goodness being incompatible in the way they cary themselves out. For instace, a person whom wants to not do the "right" thing (share) but make sure a person that does the wrong thing get screwed (push for stealing by stealing ensuring that both get nothing) is incompatible with the Goodness version where share is the only option. The conflict between "Love" and "Justice" meant, to me, that there is no way to be loyal to both at the same time, and anyone who says they are is a lier. Anyway, didn't want to drag the conversation here per say, but this was a key kind of conversation I had with myself in a very similar chain of events as to this gameshow...a showdown of ideas, ideals, and morals.

>> ^RedSky:

Lol, last time this show got posted I suggested the exact same idea.
>> ^RedSky:
Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.


>> ^RedSky:
@direpickle
I admit the idea does hinge on being able to convince the other fully of your actions, but if you can, then you'll effectively have changed their payoff to steal = nothing, share = possibility of something. If you can see you've evidently convinced them, you could even pull a fast one and instead choose to share thus saving you time and effort! I guess it's kind of contradictory to effectively act benevolent through authority but in a limited case like this, where you can reduce the uncertainty of an undesirable outcome considerably, I think it's fully worth it.

Lol, last time this show got posted I suggested the exact same idea.

>> ^RedSky:

Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.



>> ^RedSky:

@direpickle
I admit the idea does hinge on being able to convince the other fully of your actions, but if you can, then you'll effectively have changed their payoff to steal = nothing, share = possibility of something. If you can see you've evidently convinced them, you could even pull a fast one and instead choose to share thus saving you time and effort! I guess it's kind of contradictory to effectively act benevolent through authority but in a limited case like this, where you can reduce the uncertainty of an undesirable outcome considerably, I think it's fully worth it.

What's in my mouth? That could be a game show.