happy birthday, @siftbot

here's your card.
seems like yesterday you got your gold star.
our juvenile spree on your comments was fun,
but don't worry - you earned every upvote a hundredfold.

you're a whole lot of *quality, and just the right sprinkling of *wtf

love,
the meatbags

1. Killer Whales are closer to dolphins. REALLY big dolphins.
2. These are juveniles. Kids play.
3. Don't slow down dude. There are motherfuckin' killer whales chasing this motherfuckin' boat.

Your video, Juveniles pirates attacking ship, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

""Since 2 of those 3 [religions] have already internally dealt with the most horrendous of their ideas"

Now that is fucking funny, and the crux of Sam Harris's ignorance"

To think that they haven't, it would seem to me, is to be either forgetful, or ignorant of their pasts and just how horribly they behaved.

To pretend that you've made a point by sneering dismissively is just juvenile. Explain your stance.

The wholesale, unabashed genocides in the old testament seem to me to be more horrible than anything that jews are doing, for religious reasons in the present day. And that is taking Israel into account.

The picketing of soldier's funerals seems altogether less bad than the spanish inquisition.

It's not to say that Judaism and Christianity don't still have some work to do. Of course they do. But they've already climbed quite a distance.

You should really focus a little more on improving your own critical thinking skills.

She didn't just run outside, nor demonstrate any hatred for cops. She was trying to reason with the first officer who insisted on ignoring her likely solely in the interest of saving face.

It was only after her willful ignorance that the lawyer lady became upset.

Just like your world-class critical thinking skills lead you to believe the cops had a good reason to interrogate the old guy based on him as an individual (and not as just as some black man), you should point your critical thinking in the other direction and determine that the lawyer was upset with the cop as an individual for her specific actions, not just because she's some cop.

With any sliver of critical thinking it's obvious there's no indication the lawyer hates cops, just that she's upset with the actions of this person, who happens to be a cop.

Talk about sounding juvenile.

The bottom line is: the police officers did absolutely nothing wrong. But this lady comes out, she hates cops which tickles your gooseberries and instead of using critical thinking, you let your emotions get the better of you.

Try not to do that, it makes you sound juvenile.

FTW???
Maybe I'm just not juvenile enough, but I'm not seeing the humor here.
Jeeze, at least, Lay him on the ground and prop his head up.
He's going to have one hell of a headache and maybe some medical. (??)

I saw a post recently that really had me thinking. We have special laws for the showing of naked children and child porn. Message boards all over the world famous for allowing almost anything, allow anything except pictures of naked children.

And yet we don't bat an eye at pictures of murdered children. Why is that? Children get beaten and killed both first world and third world countries, and we have no problem plastering it all over the media sites. Some people may be offended, but most admins will leave it if it is a site that promotes juvenile posting. After all there are no laws against posting pictures of dead children.

So remember, dead children are OK. But god forbid they are naked!

You can't seem to understand that it is BECAUSE you defend these indefensible cops that I (and others) paint you (and other officers) as corrupt.

EDIT: Calling you 'predictable' isn't 'juvenile name calling' if it's properly descriptive, and it TOTALLY was, I predicted you supporting the cops and/or blaming the innocent victims, and that's exactly what you did.

Gee, someone here is able to present a point w/o resorting to juvenile name-calling.

Lucky, imagine if you were a doctor and all you got to see on videosift were videos of doctors misbehaving...screwing with medicare, cutting off the wrong foot, leaving scalpels inside people's abdomens and you tried to say...hey, this is rare, there might be more to the story, that doctor was censured, etc.

In my 30 yrs of LE experience I don't see people getting beat up, or shot, or assaulted, or arrested for no reason.

But some people come along here and besmirch every single LE officer on the planet and say they are all corrupt, etc.

I have to defend the cops or at least show that these instances of misbehavior are rare.

Some of these commenters here are so angry you have to wonder what happened in their personal lives that they have all of this animus toward authority figures, which cops are.

See, I've worked with cops and I see what they do. The people here see a video and think they know everything about everything.

Just saying.

Also, I am not saying cops should be able to do anything at any time, etc. I believe cops should operate under the law and policies set up by their department.

@Jerykk

You seem to subscribe to the idea of government spending being fixed and a zero sum game. It's not. If a prison rehabilitation program prevents a former criminal from re-offending and he finds gainful employment, then not only does the country derive potentially lost tax revenue but they avoid the cost of future incarceration. There's a good chance that's a net positive, even though there's initial money put down.

Your mentality fits a uniquely American approach to social problems that many in the rest of the developed world (Europe, Australia, Japan) would find strange, possibly even pathological. Being that, government spending should be kept to a minimum, and every policy should be based on market incentives (in this case threats), even in cases where taking a different approach would produce a better result. Now I studied economics and would be one of the first to say that this is clearly a better approach in many situations. But not all cases.

Your statement here is a good example:

"History has proven that fear is a very effective deterrent. Convince people that there are significant consequences for their actions and they'll think twice before doing something stupid.'

This is intuition, but your intuition is wrong. Firstly codified law does little 'convincing'. How many offenders do you think know the likely sentence of their crime before they are caught? If you agree then how likely do you think say a doubling of the prison term for shop-lifting going to have any effect?

There's no reason to test this because the data exists already when comparing pre and post juvenile offenders. The potential punishment leaps but the risk of re-offending barely changes.

As for more serious crimes, if the graveness of the death penalty is such a strong deterrent, then why does the US lead the charts among developed countries for murder and incarceration rates despite being one of the few that have it? Not to mention, the ones that do, Singapore and Japan barely ever use it.

Frankly, the whole notion that you can rationally deal with a person who is committing a crime (who is fundamentally acting irrational in committing the crime in the first place) is ludicrous.

Let's be serious. Your idea of punishment being a deterrent sounds nice but is not supported by any actual real world data. Meanwhile Scandinavian countries which do focus on rehabilitation have seen substantial drops in recidivism. There's the 'trust me it will work this time' and there's the 'supported by actual evidence' approach.

Probably because PA's humor is more juvenile and videogame related? It's impressive what they did with PAX and Gabe's art has really improved over the years, but TED is really not their audience.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I know it's juvenile, but I couldn't stop laughing at this.

41% of juveniles before they turn 23 will have been arrested.

That blew me away.

You say you aren't looking at them sexually yet you follow it up with how seductive they are?

Point is, which you seem to purposely overlook, is that staring is a LOT different than observing. Checking someone out is fine and dandy. Staring, obnoxiously, at a women's breasts because it sexually excites you as she's breastfeeding is just plain juvenile.

So again, if you think they should be okay with you staring at their body, why aren't you letting yours hang all out for them?