I don't think it's fair to place the "women are offended" blame on people like Gwiz alone. Offensive comments are an obvious landmine; most people go around them, some people run up and jump on them. I have no idea if that makes any sense to people who aren't me.

Part of being in a community (especially and particularly an internet community) is trusting that the people you're with have the emotional maturity to deal with things in a sensible, coherent way, ESPECIALLY in the event that something you've said is offensive.

I guess I'm saying that something being offensive, and someone taking offense, are vastly different things. I feel like it's all completely fucking trivial, and getting worked up about it is an exercise in futility.

Sexism, domestic abuse and violence of a related sort? Those are the problems that deserve this kind of attention and scrutiny and energy. The sift is just commentary.

@MarineGunrock

Go step on a landmine you chinless weasel. It's the War Crimes, stupid.

@NetRunner
So far you have deployed pens that blow up, landmines and exploding pots of gold. I can only assume the rat traps contain a nuclear component?

I do find the feeding frenzy of commentary here fascinating.

Here's my own angle, and why I opened my yap to begin with. I could immediately tell that this would be one of those videos that would sort people into two camps, one that says "this is awesome, more people should do this", and the other that says "this is horrible, what kind of asshole does something like that?"

I fall into the latter category. I think people in the other camp are broken human beings in some way I have yet to really understand.

To me, premeditated plans to hurt other human beings are not something moral people should do without a really good reason. "Because they stole from me" just isn't enough in my book, especially if you were intentionally trying to get someone to steal from you just to give yourself a justification for inflicting harm on another human being.

I keep throwing out examples where the items stolen are essentially worthless (pens, trudging on the grass in my backyard), and where the danger I'm secretly presenting to the "criminal" is high (explosions, both times), to see whether people defend that (as GeeSussFreeK did), or if someone who supports the filmmaker's actions will clearly take a stand against landmines and exploding pens as being immoral.

The closest I've gotten is Psychologic telling me that those situations differ from what's in the video in a special way (i.e. bikes are inherently dangerous in ways that pens & grass aren't), which at least implies that he thinks landmines aren't okay.

Most are pointedly ignoring those examples, and just tossing insults at the people who think the filmmaker did something wrong.

My point is really this: you libertarians and property rights aficionados have misunderstood your own credo. What's the first axiom of libertarian philosophy? Self ownership. A person's body is their property. Whatever else you might say about the thief, his body is his property, and the filmmaker knowingly and intentionally made an effort to damage it.

It's true that the thief could have avoided the danger. But you guys always tell me that we don't need safety regulations, because if someone gets hurt by the actions of another person, that other person owes their victim restitution (imstellar in particular gets credit for explaining that one to me a year or more ago). This is why the filmmaker should be free to endanger people without hassles from the state in the first place.

So, let me restate what I said in my first comment here: they both owe each other restitution. The thief stole from the filmmaker, and should make him whole. The filmmaker also intentionally sabotaged the bike, which may have damaged the thief's property (his body), so he owes the thief restitution to make him whole.

If you walk away from that, you are not defenders of equal, individual rights, you are just a bunch of fair-weather libertarians. You want your rights respected when it means you get to skip on having to pay taxes, but when it comes to having to defend people you don't really like, you're ready to toss them to the wolves (and film the carnage and sell it to people).

> ^NetRunner:
Actually, it's more like "In America, we take our rights for granted so much that we think that people who commit crimes don't have any."

He doesn't have "any" rights? The only right I see violated here is the right to assume a stolen bicycle will work correctly. If he had strapped a bomb to it then I would agree with you (and the landmine analogy), but all he did was emulate a state of disrepair.

"Booby trapping" something implies adding a dangerous functionality that is not inherent to the situation. Lawns aren't expected to explode, but loose bolts are common... check them before you take off down the street.

If some guy steals a gun and accidentally shoots himself in the foot because he didn't check to see if it was loaded or the safety was off then I have a hard time blaming the owner, even if the owner left it in that condition intentionally.

So you know, booby-trapping your property with the intention to cause harm to those who disturb it is illegal. Just thought you should know that, since you're pasting your face on a crime and giggling while uploading it to the internet.

And landmines in New Mexico... are you kidding me? Not only is that patently illegal it is a violation of the Geneva convention...

You actually DO have the right not to be maimed when stealing things/breaking and entering/tresspassing and the like. In some states you can be shot by the owner and that is fine since it is not a dumb trap, but a (potentially dumb) person making a decision. There are many many court cases upholding this right all over the US. Google it.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Psychologic:
^ And I suppose you also want me to stop removing the bolts from the steering wheel when I park my car? You're no fun. =P

If you're seeking out a parking spots in high crime areas, leaving the keys in the ignition, the doors unlocked (and possibly ajar), and then hiding nearby with a video camera and giggling, YES!

America, we take our right to our lives for granted so much that we punish people for doing what they want to their property to protect those that lie cheat and steal.

Actually, it's more like "In America, we take our rights for granted so much that we think that people who commit crimes don't have any."
Read my qualifications again, and think about why there's a big difference between that and "doing what they want to protect their property."
Incidentally, do you think it's okay to put landmines in your backyard because you don't like the neighbor's kids taking shortcuts across your lawn (i.e. trespassing)?


About the landmines, people do that in New Mexico and people, as a consequence, don't trespass. You don't have the right not to be maimed when taking something that isn't yours. That right results in the crazy ass law suits of people stealing your stuff and suing you for hurting themselves. Where as I wouldn't put mines in my backyard to keep people off, people shoot trespassers in my state and are protected by law to do so.

This isn't even a case of people protecting their property however. None of these measures were being used in a way to prevent the bike from being stolen. They were done to get some luls off of anyone who rode the bike. Being that the bike wasn't theirs, they took the risk riding it, and as such inherit all the culpability of that action. It is different than, say, throwing a bunch of marbles at a crosswalk and watching people fall over. When he took the bike, he inherited the risk of not knowing any of the ways in which that bike worked, or in this case, was deficient. The fact that it was purposefully made defective is moot.

This doesn't carry over to other situations because other situations require an initial point of contract. Like if you buy a car, turns out to be a lemon you can sometimes sue because of the initial point of contact where you were buying "A" and got "B" instead. This person is taking "B" assuming it is "A" and getting pie in his face as a result. There was no fraud as there was no initial point of contract. The thief could of easily of just walked the bike away instead of riding it if he knew this bike wasn't for riding.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Psychologic:
^ And I suppose you also want me to stop removing the bolts from the steering wheel when I park my car? You're no fun. =P

If you're seeking out a parking spots in high crime areas, leaving the keys in the ignition, the doors unlocked (and possibly ajar), and then hiding nearby with a video camera and giggling, YES!

America, we take our right to our lives for granted so much that we punish people for doing what they want to their property to protect those that lie cheat and steal.


Actually, it's more like "In America, we take our rights for granted so much that we think that people who commit crimes don't have any."

Read my qualifications again, and think about why there's a big difference between that and "doing what they want to protect their property."

Incidentally, do you think it's okay to put landmines in your backyard because you don't like the neighbor's kids taking shortcuts across your lawn (i.e. trespassing)?

it is the case that the Khmer Rouge used US made landmines

Actually, you should probably call me out for being wrong on a much grander scale when I thought the Khmer Rouge were treated as enemies by the west. As it turns out the Khmer Rouge were enemies to the Soviets and so by Cold War tactics 101, the west officially supported them. My only excuse for my ignorance would have to be a lame appeal to it all having taken place before I was born.


We're all assholes.


As long as that's clear I'm good, well, more like depressed but in agreement.


"who has a responsibility to help make a place where there are no land mines." Let the dead bury the dead--who will care for the living?

Agreed.

>> ^bcglorf:

It is safe to say that, for all it matters, any mines laid by the Khmer Rouge were NOT western made.


So the particular mine in this video appears to be a PMN-2 which was made by the former USSR. But, it is the case that the Khmer Rouge used US made landmines (for example, the M16A1 and the M14-- NB: interesting article on how they work) This information can be easily gained with roughly 10 seconds of patience and a willingness to think before you act (something we in the US suck at). Hell, it is in the previous link I posted.


Landmines were the very least of anybody's crimes in Cambodia. Kissinger and his western kin have far more blood on their hands from carpet bombing.

My point is not that the Khmer Rouge were not assholes --they totally were. And so were we. We're all assholes. And until we go ahead and acknowledge that--we'll keep playing the finger pointing game and forget to pay attention to one of the greatest crimes continuing today. That people, right now, are suffering in Cambodia and other places like it and we're doing nothing to help.

The question should not be "who is responsible for making or placing these land mines" the question should be "who has a responsibility to help make a place where there are no land mines." Let the dead bury the dead--who will care for the living?

I believe the question was "who made the landmines" not "who laid the landmines" in which case the WEsterners would be among the culprits.

Again though, the specific ones this guy is clearing are stated to be those that he helped lay down as a child soldier for the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge, having a communist core, were only on the receiving end of western arms in the undesirable way. It is safe to say that, for all it matters, any mines laid by the Khmer Rouge were NOT western made.

My bigger point I was being 'anal' about wasn't really over who made the mines. It was about placing appropriate blame. Landmines were the very least of anybody's crimes in Cambodia. Kissinger and his western kin have far more blood on their hands from carpet bombing. The Khmer Rouge have more blood still for executing one of the worst genocides since the holocaust.

I don't want to detract from the west's guilt, but neither do I want to see the misconception that everything is the fault of America getting reinforced falsely. If you only blame the West for what's happened in Cambodia you are forgiving or ignoring the Khmer Rouge, and this guy would no doubt agree that's a very bad thing.

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^alizarin:
>> ^zor:
Great sift! I've never seen anything like that before. Now, on to find the assholes who made those and sold them.

That'd be us - "mines found in Cambodia have been manufactured in the US, China, Vietnam, the former USSR and East Germany, the former Czechoslovakia, India, Chile, South and North Korea, Thailand, Iran, Iraq, South Africa, Bulgaria, the former Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Poland." - article
As of 2007, a total of 158 nations have agreed to [ban landmines]. Thirty-seven countries have not agreed to the ban, including China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the United States.
We deserve a swift kick to the nuts!

Actually, the particular mines this guy is defusing would NOT be us(the western world). The video description is clear that the Khmer Rouge(communists) were the ones that laid the fields he is clearing.
I know it may seem anal but the details of how these atrocities went down are important to remember and have straight.



I believe the question was "who made the landmines" not "who laid the landmines" in which case the WEsterners would be among the culprits.
"The CMAC reports that mines found in Cambodia have been manufactured in the US, China, Vietnam, the former USSR and East Germany, the former Czechoslovakia, India, Chile, South and North Korea, Thailand, Iran, Iraq, South Africa, Bulgaria, the former Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Poland."

"I know it may seem anal but the details of how these atrocities went down are important to remember and have straight."

Um, I would not call him an outright hero... did you guys read the description proper? He was one of the people who laid them in the first place. Yeah I know he was just a kid back then, and pretty much just doing what he was told to do, even though he could have refused and paid the consequence. So I do give him massive kudos though for fixing up his wrongs. We forgive you.

Oh yeah and >> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker landmines ARE banned.

Our scientists are studying this video now for ways to improve our landmine design.

>> ^alizarin:
>> ^zor:
Great sift! I've never seen anything like that before. Now, on to find the assholes who made those and sold them.

That'd be us - "mines found in Cambodia have been manufactured in the US, China, Vietnam, the former USSR and East Germany, the former Czechoslovakia, India, Chile, South and North Korea, Thailand, Iran, Iraq, South Africa, Bulgaria, the former Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Poland." - article
As of 2007, a total of 158 nations have agreed to [ban landmines]. Thirty-seven countries have not agreed to the ban, including China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the United States.
We deserve a swift kick to the nuts!


Actually, the particular mines this guy is defusing would NOT be us(the western world). The video description is clear that the Khmer Rouge(communists) were the ones that laid the fields he is clearing. The swift kick in the nuts is still shared with us for being the ones that carpet bombed Cambodia into the stone ages 'just in case', paving the way for the Khmer Rouge to commence their own even worse genocide of the country.

I know it may seem anal but the details of how these atrocities went down are important to remember and have straight.

And the biggest reason for opposing the landmine ban is situations like Korea were tonnes of explosives hidden in land mines along the border play a big role in PREVENTING violence.

And yes, this guy rocks.