I'd argue that there's no absolute anything AAAAAnd...Porn feeds neurotransmitters what they want, causing your body to produce drugs that were not coursing through your system prior to indulging-Too much of a good thing can cause problems, as evidenced in some of the porn-on-the-brain operators you encounter more and more and more and more everyday. I would argue that an over-indulgence in porn creates in many cases, socially inept, emotional cripples with hardly a chance of a healthy holistic relationship with another human being.
Of the estimated 3-6% of people in the United States deemed, "Hypersexual", I'd guess that less than 1 percent are biologically nympho-maniacal-The rest watch too much fucking porn!

I can agree with the few first minutes, and that that the video portrays what definitely is the overall intent toward our education, but so much of this video is flawed it’s clearly made for those who are already inept at critical, independent thought.
As much as such a wake-up call is necessary for the populace of the world, I can't celebrate anything that just tries to manipulate the manipulable to their side.

the two most probable reasons why someone wouldn't come forward with information (allow information to be released)

1) it makes them look inept

2) (more likely) it cuts off the gravy train

the Conservative government in Canada are scum

They probably got suspended for that, they just don't bother reporting everything for obvious reasons, L.A.'s stigmatic history of her police force notwithstanding.

The illusion that these things happen everyday is only exacerbated by national and local, nightly newscasts. They want you to be afraid, so you will agree to their solutions to the "problem."

Gun culture or no gun culture, the chaos we're seeing is symptomatic of civilization-on-the-skids, in general.

If we had no guns, neurotics and burn-outs, the developmentally-disabled, off-the-charts hind-brainers, and morally and ethically bankrupt peeps would do it with clubs and knives and pointy, fucking sticks.

Wait until China fully rears her socially-inept neurotics upon the world as they suddenly become a power-player in the world economy-You think this shit is crazy??! Try a quarter of the world still 10 centuries behind a good portion of the world's population socio-culturally suddenly everywhere and anywhere. A wise man would teach his children some Mandarin phrases YESTERDAY!

Your ideals, his politics, WTF? What you are saying is that you chose an extreme example (like this news organization did) as your offering, inserting through the filter of your experiences in your society as described, what? You obviously have no desire to see anyone with guns, or any society in which this could possibly happen, and you'd be interested in selling a wondrous adjustment or replacement based upon what? Your personal experiences and world view?? Your own country's model for how to get along?? It's sounds just as pontificous any passionate nut job, right left or center.

Now focus on some lobbies wanting to make money, describe their motivations using crude imagery to make what point ??(knowing fuck-all about the gun lobbies in the U.S. I'd hasten to guess you are pulling shit out of your own ass??)?

A point everyone seems to miss is lost in endless banter over this gun issue in a country whose real problems dwarf how many and what type of boomsticks people have.

The people who control policy, who have worked hard to bankrupt this country and rape her human resources, drug them, offer them more laws to create an illusion of safety and fairness? Fuck you.

Problem isn't guns, mine or yours, or the ones you poor fucks in countries who have decided for you that guns are bad for you. The problem is that the world is full of the most part, of ineffectual, programmable, inept automotons when it comes to exercising their rights under natural laws, AS evidenced for me, in the up-voting of grinter's little passionate episode here...

My country is full of broken people, desperate people, seasoned with an inordinate amount of total fuck-ups, and I have to watch the shit in slow-motion while it gets even more fun...with guns, with a political system totally fucking retarded holding her citizens an economic hostage to special interests dwarfing any gun lobby's.

Is YOUR country broken grinter, or have you decided that you are satisfied with elected officials. we don;t have elected officials anymore. We have criminals.

WORLDWIDE, we're headed for a radical democracy or some comfortable, tolerable, illusory freedoms under a Nuevo-Fascist Global Cuntfest at this point.
Fuuuuck! Get a clue!? all I have to do is watch how utterly retarded these hearings are(kangaroo-court-style) to gauge the breakdown of this motherfucker...

Actually it's even more bizarre. As radx mentioned it wasn't a gun, but a gas pistol; a replica which can only fire tear gas rounds or blanks.

Blanks can be fatal at very close range, but it's far from a sure thing. I can't really guess what he was trying to accomplish. Possibly just crazy and inept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_pistol

http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/Gas-pistol-pointed-at-Bulgaria-party-leader-4207697.php

Jeez lady, you haven't got a clue who I am or what my sensibilities are-Do you always read what's written and make it sound the way you'd like it to in your head? I mean, I do sometimes, but I heard tell that some are incapable of anything else.

I will gladly be the last person in line to hand in my firearms, in the perfect world of, "This isn't some whacky socio-genetic experiment I never signed-up for."

Again, focus on the dangerously inept beings groomed for failure in the United States by design, lose the big pharma/eroding family/and a general shit-think of, "I could give a fuck about anyone else but me" attitude that seeks to replace sanity, and guns aren't a fucking problem, they're just another tool in the shed.

...and yeah, coolhund, yo do "Gotta love the bigotry and hypocrisy on this topic. From both sides", otherwise your head may fucking explode!!

I'm really not sure why everyone is making such a big deal out of it. They didn't have the rockets for it, just the launcher.

Everyone comes here and posts videos about how the police abuse the system and how inept they are. Then we are willing to believe the police aren't just holding a replica and are too dumb to notice?

Someone out there probably paid like $300 for "Military Replica Style Rocket Launcher" and sold it to the cops for like $2,000 and he's laughing his ass all the way to the bank.

Otherwise wouldn't we hear "Bizzare Rocket Launcher Murder solved!" No questions or not I can't believe they would just let that guy go.

My god some people should not be allowed to drive. How can their brain not handle the pretty simple working of what happens when you turn the wheel one way vs the other? Stunningly inept

>> ^shuac:

>> ^A10anis:
>> ^shuac:
>> ^A10anis:
Why does the title say; "A Ham-fisted Explanation?" I found the analogy spot on. Oh, and I would add that saying Atheism is a religion, is like saying abstinence is a sexual position..

I think it might be considered ham-fisted to an atheist (of which Videosift is mostly comprised), who already understands the subtitles involved.

Sorry, your argument is a non-sequitur. I am an atheist and the video makes perfect sense to me!

Then you misunderstand what "ham-fisted" means.

What it means where you are from, I have no idea. Here in England ham-fisted means inept, clumsy, etc. I'm done...

>> ^jimnms:
No one said anything about teaching a child how to use a gun. You have lots of things in your house that are deadly to kids (knives, chemicals, etc.), and I hope you would teach them that those things are dangerous and not to be played with rather than hiding them and hoping they wont find them. Why would a gun be any different?


I'm not sure who's disagreeing with who here.

The fact that you can teach a child in order to make their access to guns safer doesn't mean that every child that has access to guns will be taught this in a sufficient way. Besides, how many children had lots of training and still ended up shooting themselves or someone else.

If you don't think having a gun in your home would automatically make it the most dangerous thing in that home then you're either being disingenuous or you have some freaky shit going on in your house.

So my question is: despite the fact that some kids can be taught to be careful with a firearm, what is the justification of owning one, that doesn't require paranoid delusions such as:

1. The country being invaded by a foreign military that's sophisticated enough to get on land in large numbers without enough forewarning to enable a military defense; or are able to overcome a military defense (for the US that would be the world's largest military defense by an order of magnitude) - yet inept enough to be overwhelmed by a rag tag, uncoordinated army of citizens.

2. The country suddenly turning into a military dictatorship without warning (for the US that would be the world's largest military dictatorship by an order of magnitude so you'd really be kind of screwed anyway).

3. Everybody needing to suddenly hunt for rabbits with UZIs.

4. Maybe something to do with zombies.

I'll play devil's advocate and say 5: to defend your property and family against an armed burgler. Yet if you take a look at the rest of the world, at countries where guns are not prolific, gun assisted burglaries are so rare that it doesn't even bear thinking about.


The fact that you need a gun to defend yourself against someone with a gun is because you both have guns. - Captain "Circular" Obvious

I can't really budge on this unless you can somehow convince me that it's not preferable to live in a western society where almost all people have never even seen a real gun, therefore removing all their associated problems.

That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.

>> ^colt45:

I'm amused at two assertions: guns are designed to kill people, and that kids think guns are fun to play with.
Children who are not taught properly about firearms are, generally, viewing them as toys to play with. Children who are properly taught about firearm safety, use, etc., are much more likely to view them properly; as very dangerous tools.

>> ^Sagemind:

I dislike her and don't agree with any of her blunt, rude comments BUT the word retard has a definition and can used as such.
re·tard 1 (r-tärd)
v. re·tard·ed, re·tard·ing, re·tards
v.tr.
To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.
v.intr.
To be delayed.
n.
1. A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay.
2. Music A slackening of tempo.
The word does not mean stupid - it means "To move slowly" and may be used in reference to someone who responds slowly. A very intelligent person can retard the process to get a clear perspective on the situation or to stonewall.
I use retardant in my paint so it drys slower.
Even used as a derogatory term, the word at best, means one is slow. I don't agree with her using the term in the way she did and she was clearly lashing out like a child having a temper tantrum but to the meaning of the word itself, I see so issues here.
Piers needs to let this one go and move on.


Hmmm the only problem with this argument is that right underneath the section of the website you quoted there's this:

re·tard 2 (rtärd)
n. Offensive Slang
1. Used as a disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.
2. A person considered to be foolish or socially inept.

Now I'm all for free speech, even offensive free speech when it has something important or meaningful to say but this is the entirety of Anne's tweet: “I highly approve of Romney's decision to be kind and gentle to the retard.”

Which to me lacks any real substance and says nothing of consequence or importance. In fact its just plain nasty and shallow.

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^schlub:
Ok, I'm ignorant. Can someone explain Asperger, clearly? Everything I've read (which is like, two things) makes it sound like it's just someone who is socially inept... Honestly, the guy in this video is like several people I've encountered in my lifetime... so, I don't get it. What differentiates someone with Asperger from someone who just sucks at talking to people and has what some consider weird hobbies/interests (like 'Bronies')?

I'd recommend looking up "Theory of Mind" because generally autistic people have an impaired theory of mind. A basic explanation of this is summed up by a difficulty to guage/recognise other people's emotional responses to given situations - it's very difficult to perceive what it's like for other people. This can make social interaction very awkward, since conversation is hard to follow unless there is some first-hand experience of the topic being discussed. Think of a lack of empathy except in situations where prior experience allows the autistic person to recall how it affected them. This is a very rudimentary explanation and there is much more to theory of mind and I'd definitely encourage reading a bit more about it since it affects everyone, NT and aspie alike.
There's lots more to Asperger's Syndrome than just an impaired theory of mind. The way the brain files information is another example of a significant difference. Recollection of prior events is a very different process when comparing NT people to aspies. Another difference is the way a lot of background processing of information for most people is actually foreground processing for aspies (i.e. direct awareness of the information being absorbed and how it relates to existing knowledge). An example of this could be the observation of body language - most people absorb that info subconsciously whereas an autistic person has to be trained or train themselves to be aware of the signals and then actively calculate what those signals can potentially mean about the person exhibiting the behaviour.
Hope that offers some insight, just bear in mind that there's no single diagnosis for Asperger's. It's a collection of symptoms that are considered and when enough boxes are ticked the diagnosis can be confirmed. Not all criteria are essential for the diagnosis and it's entirely possible for two aspies to have a number of different symptoms out of the overall list of criteria. That's the way of it, and justifies the use of the word "spectrum" when referring to autism in general.
Good question BTW


This is fantastic, thank you!

>> ^schlub:

Ok, I'm ignorant. Can someone explain Asperger, clearly? Everything I've read (which is like, two things) makes it sound like it's just someone who is socially inept... Honestly, the guy in this video is like several people I've encountered in my lifetime... so, I don't get it. What differentiates someone with Asperger from someone who just sucks at talking to people and has what some consider weird hobbies/interests (like 'Bronies')?


I'd recommend looking up "Theory of Mind" because generally autistic people have an impaired theory of mind. A basic explanation of this is summed up by a difficulty to guage/recognise other people's emotional responses to given situations - it's very difficult to perceive what it's like for other people. This can make social interaction very awkward, since conversation is hard to follow unless there is some first-hand experience of the topic being discussed. Think of a lack of empathy except in situations where prior experience allows the autistic person to recall how it affected them. This is a very rudimentary explanation and there is much more to theory of mind and I'd definitely encourage reading a bit more about it since it affects everyone, NT and aspie alike.

There's lots more to Asperger's Syndrome than just an impaired theory of mind. The way the brain files information is another example of a significant difference. Recollection of prior events is a very different process when comparing NT people to aspies. Another difference is the way a lot of background processing of information for most people is actually foreground processing for aspies (i.e. direct awareness of the information being absorbed and how it relates to existing knowledge). An example of this could be the observation of body language - most people absorb that info subconsciously whereas an autistic person has to be trained or train themselves to be aware of the signals and then actively calculate what those signals can potentially mean about the person exhibiting the behaviour.

Hope that offers some insight, just bear in mind that there's no single diagnosis for Asperger's. It's a collection of symptoms that are considered and when enough boxes are ticked the diagnosis can be confirmed. Not all criteria are essential for the diagnosis and it's entirely possible for two aspies to have a number of different symptoms out of the overall list of criteria. That's the way of it, and justifies the use of the word "spectrum" when referring to autism in general.

Good question BTW

Ok, I'm ignorant. Can someone explain Asperger, clearly? Everything I've read (which is like, two things) makes it sound like it's just someone who is socially inept... Honestly, the guy in this video is like several people I've encountered in my lifetime... so, I don't get it. What differentiates someone with Asperger from someone who just sucks at talking to people and has what some consider weird hobbies/interests (like 'Bronies')?