@hpqp
Good points, all.
However, the "cognition is sacred" (as opposed to "human life is sacred") viewpoint has a hole in it about the size of human consciousness. (Oh man, tangent time!) Some loudly proclaim the presence of a divine soul or spirit, but there is certainly something else there, aside from the physical form.
Obviously, human (and for that matter animal) experience and behavior is influenced by the physical brain and its processes. Damage to it predictably and reproducibly changes behavior and perception. As much as some of us would like to think otherwise, the physical structure and function of the brain influences who we are and what we do as individuals. I would honestly have no problem accepting that the physical universe as we've modeled it functions precisely as it has, autonomously. (Right down to fruitless debates between individuals on the Internet.) Evolution is a real thing. The brain has developed as yet another beneficial mutation that promotes the propagation of its host organism. Input in, behavior out, feedback loop. Click click click, ding.
But the problem is that we experience this. Somehow this mass of individual cells (and below that individual molecules, atoms, quarks) experiences itself in a unified manner, or rather something experiences this mass of matter in a unified manner. No matter how far down you track it, there's no physical accommodation for consciousness. To give a specific example, the cells in the eye detect light (intensity and wavelength) by electrochemical stimulation. The binary "yes\no" of stimulation is routed through the thalamus in individual axons, physically separated in space, to the visual cortex, where it's propagated and multiplied through a matrix of connections, but all individual cells, and all just ticking on and off based on chemical and electrical thresholds. The visual field is essentially painted as a physical map across a region of the brain, but somehow, the entire image is experienced at once. Cognition is necessarily distinct from consciousness.

What this means, practically, is that we must attribute value to cognition and consciousness separately.
Cognition may not be completely understood, but we can explain it in increasingly specific terms, and it seems that we'll be able to unravel how the brain works within the current model. It absolutely has a value. We consider a person who is "a vegetable" to have little to no current or expected quality of life, and generally are comfortable making the decision to "pull the plug".
Consciousness, however, is what we believe makes us special in the universe, despite being completely empty from a theoretical standpoint. If sensory input, memory, and behavioral responses are strictly a function of the material, then stripped of those our "unified experience" is completely undetectable\untestable. We have no way of knowing if our neighbor is a meaty automaton or a conscious being, but we assume. Which is precisely why it's special. It's obviously extra-physical. Perhaps @gorillaman's tomatobaby (that is, the newborn which he says is without Mind) has a consciousness, but it isn't obvious because the physical structure is insufficient for meaningful manifestation. I have difficulty accepting that consciousness, empty though it is on its own, is without value. "So what," though, right? If you can't detect it in anyone but yourself, what use is it in this discussion? Clearly, there IS something about the structure or function of the brain that's conducive to consciousness. We are only conscious of what the brain is conscious of and what it has conceived of within its bounds. So the brain at least is important, but it's not the whole point.
Anyway, there's that tangent.

The "stream of potential life" argument has its limits. Any given sperm or egg is exceedingly unlikely to develop into a human. For a single fertilized egg, the odds shift dramatically. That's why people seek abortions, because if they don't do something, they're probably going to have a baby. The probability of "brewin' a human" is pretty good once you're actually pregnant. The "potential for human life" is very high, which is why you can even make the quality of life argument.

Obviously, you realize how those on the anti-abortion side of the debate react when someone who is...let's say abortion-tolerant ("pro-abortion" overstates it for just about anyone, I suspect) says that they're considering the "quality of life" of the prospective child in their calculus. They get this mental image: "Your mother and I think you'll both be better off this way, trust me. *sound of a meatball in a blender*"
I appreciate that we're trying to minimize suffering in the world and promote goodness, but I think it's over-reaching to paint every potential abortion (or even most) as a tragic tale of suffering simply because the parent wasn't expecting parenthood. Quality of life is much more nuanced. Many wonderful humans have risen from squalor and suffering and will tell you earnestly they believe that background made them stronger\wiser\more empathetic\special. Many parents who were devastated to learn they were pregnant love their unexpected children. And holy crap, kids with Downs, man. What's the quality of life for them and their parents? Terribly challenging and terribly rewarding.
No, I'm not trying to paint rainbows over economic hardship and child abuse and say that "everything's going to be finnnnneeee", but quality of life is a personal decision and it's unpredictable. Isn't that what "It Gets Better" is all about? "Things may seem grim and terrible now, but don't kill yourself just yet, you're going to miss out on some awesome stuff."

Hrm. Thus far we've really been framing abortion as being about "unready" parents, probably because the discussion started on the "mother can choose to have sex" angle.
You've got to wonder how confused this issue would get if we could detect genetically if a fetus might be homosexual. Would Christians loosen their intolerance for abortion if it meant not having a "gay baby"? (Even if it would fly in the face of their belief that homosexuality is a choice.) Would pro-choicer's take a second look at the availability of abortion? Would it still be "one of those terrible things that happens in a free society"?

On western aid, you're spot on. It's so easy to throw money at a problem and pretend we're helping. Humanitarian aid does nothing if we're not promoting and facilitating self-sufficiency. Some people just need a little help getting by until they're back on their feet, but some communities need a jump-start. As you say, they need practical education. I've only been on handful of humanitarian missions myself, so I give more financially than I do of my sweat, but I'm careful to evaluate HOW the organizations I give to use the funds. Are they just shipping food or are they teaching people how to live for themselves and providing the resources to get started? Sure, some giving is necessary. It's impossible for someone to think about sustainable farming and simple industry if they're dying from cholera or starving to death.

Two things come to mind:
1) "Unintended acceleration"---the cognitive panic of someone THINKING they are pressing on the brake as hard as they can when they are actually pressing on the accelerator as hard as they can (well known psychological phenomena known as cognitive dissonance usually follows these episodes---"I cannot have just run over my grandson by pressing as hard as I could on the accelerator so the only possible explanation is that the car ran away and the brakes failed"

or

2) Large floor mats, either after market (to catch rain/snow) or loosened from the floor pan securing pins (cleaning? sloppy?) pin the accelerator to the floor. Spring is too weak to return it---voila. Run away car.

And in their panic, they can't get on the brakes hard enough, because, yes, I believe it's true, there is no production car, assuming a roadworthy state BEFORE such an episode, can "burn out" its brakes or "run away" from a full application of the brake pedal.

I have no idea how long she's been around - I just discovered her while surfing through R&B tunes on youtube. I can't really say there is any "kind" of music I listen to. I like all sorts of music, with the notable exceptions of pop country and hardcore metal. Classical, R&B, techno ... you name it, there's probably an artist doing something with it that I'd like.
In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
Thanks bro..I enjoyed it. It's always nice to have new music to listen to. I've never heard this artist before..how long has she been on the scene? Is this the kind of music you generally like?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
a bit of funk to loosen you up brother.... ;

http://videosift.com/video/Shining-Star

You haven't lived until you've massaged a cloaxia with warm water and your bare hands to loosen up clumps of matted feathers.

You have not lived.

Thanks bro..I enjoyed it. It's always nice to have new music to listen to. I've never heard this artist before..how long has she been on the scene? Is this the kind of music you generally like?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
a bit of funk to loosen you up brother.... ;

http://videosift.com/video/Shining-Star

a bit of funk to loosen you up brother....

http://videosift.com/video/Shining-Star

@renatojj

Politicians don't have their hands all over businesses, it's the opposite. Businesses have their hands in the strings that direct the politicians. Which means politicians are not serving society, but serving businesses. There are many examples of things happening that you know are wrong and can see are wrong, but nothing ever happens...why? Because businesses are either making money on them or mitigating money loss by it happening.

Look at nuclear power regulations, they have been loosened and the inspectors are actually limited in what they can inspect so much so that they don't actually see more than 5 or 10% of the workings of a nuclear plant. How can they say something is safe if they see less than 10% of it and those 10% don't even allow them to do tests they used to do?

Oil company regulation, why did the BP oil spill happen? It was because they are not held to standards damn near every other country on the planet holds them to. And when you see more into it, many times the oil inspection agents were going to work for the oil company when they retired. And yet they rarely busted their balls on questionable things and got caught with their pants down many times with not catching violations.....so they probably weren't hired for their inside knowledge on how to best keep the existing equipment up to standards....since they aren't being held to them.


And as for the last post you made...you can't just drop regulation on all of these things. There's countless reasons for it but I'll try to list a few.

1) They basically hold a monopoly in many industries or a small number of very large companies that end up basically being a monopoly, so there would be no counter balance of a free market because the market has never been free to begin with. If it were truly free there'd be 100/1000/10000/100k/1mil businesses in these industries all competing on either features or price because they should all be about as reliable as one another...since we always have to picture the "perfect" free market. I'll bet you can name a couple people who have shit internet service pretty easy or pay a lot for very little.

2) You are putting the policing of industries in the industry hands if you dial back regulation. They already can not regulate themselves. How many companies supported SOPA and now how many more support CISPA? They do what's best for them and they do it cooperatively not independently. That's why you have groups formed of these companies putting bills forward that are basically passed nearly word for word if edited at all by congress critters.

3) We hear all the time about businesses only responsibility is to make money. We don't even hold a person to that standard, an individual has more responsibilities than that...earning a living is probably in the top ten but it's not your sole major responsibility as a member of society. Number 1 could arguably be "obey the law" or "don't be a dick". Business number 1 should probably be don't negatively impact people as your business model....this could be not polluting, keeping a safe work environment, not overworking people, making underhanded deals in the name of profit, making deals you know you will back out of or have no intention to honor, etc. Yes shit happens, but you shouldn't make your business model based on making shit happen to profit. Banks and financial institutes arguably did this with bad mortgages and false rating of these mortgages when selling them.

@messenger

It's not just bribing politicians, but businesses openly courting people for employment after their term of service or the people regulating them. It makes it more profitable to be lenient and not enforce regulations or laws on companies when you'll be making 3x your salary when you go to work for them after kissing their ass for a decade or two. Both the bribes and the business tie ins with Haliburton made the early days of the current war seem pretty shady when you look specifically at Dick Cheney. But it happens with advisors to people in office as well, it's something that really should be stopped because government should be about public service and not service with the intention of landing a sweet gig at some company you helped make a few billion dollars for awhile a public servant.

You can't stop it entirely, but there should definitely be some lawful punishments put in place to make it have to cost the companies exorbitant amounts to court people to court them with the severe punishments placed on people who stray too far from the path. Like prison terms or fines to the tune of percentages of their life savings and 25% of a company's value if they are caught. Unfortunately, the people who would put forth these laws are the same people who would be directly affected by them....because they are all business owners anymore...it costs too much money to get into office and rich people are the only people who tend to have the wealth/power to pull it off.

So......regulations on companies it the best you can hope for, make it so politicians can't offer them anything worth the huge donations they make to these people because regulations would make the attempts worthless, unless of course it was deregulation. Which they've already done and continue to do, to the detriment of all. Profits are up for all the big companies sometimes higher than pre-crash, and yet they employ less people than they did 5 years ago. How are they pulling THAT off....they are cutting corners or doing something shady somewhere to keep earning like that despite being less capable of producing like they did prior when a lot more people had disposable income.

Loosen up. The Irish themselves often shorten "St Patrick" to "Paddy".
>> ^Fade:

Seriously, who the fuck is St Patty? Patty is a girls name, plus if you're going to use the honorific don't shorten the bloody name.
Ask an Irishman who St Patty is and if they don't punch you in the face they'll look at you funny.

They don't do that because that wouldn't really give them that much points in the competitions, though I've seen some do them in exhibitions. Gymnastics is a very old fashioned and rigid art form, there's not a whole lot of creativity involved. Just like ice skating exhibitions are often more impressive than actual championship competitions, because they're not prohibited from doing flips etc.

Personally that's the main thing that I dislike about watching gymnastics, the overemphasized rigidity. Of course it's better for judging, but I like it more when they kinda just jam around and loosen up a bit, it's more aesthetically pleasing somehow.

EDIT: This guy is a good example of what they can do in practice etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL6uLi4r5G0 Handspring, backflip, handspring, double backflip (with a straight body, much harder), backflip, backflip, handspring and finally a double backflip with a 360 in the first one. So yeah, nothing new here, but not bad either.

OK, OK, I shouldn't say "waste of time" I should just say "timesink". And I timesinked a lot of time into Minecraft, already - to the point that I'd feel guilty spending anymore in it without doing something more productive... or just playing other games haha.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^shagen454:
yeah that rules. I feel the same way about minecraft. It's truly an artform but it's a huge waste of time. If I can get this patch though I will gladly let it take a few hours away from my life. But, alas it was just an animation so looks like I can hang onto my time.

Aren't all videogames a waste of time? Isn't every second you spend on anything that doesn't make the world a better place a waste of time? Loosen up!

>> ^shagen454:

yeah that rules. I feel the same way about minecraft. It's truly an artform but it's a huge waste of time. If I can get this patch though I will gladly let it take a few hours away from my life. But, alas it was just an animation so looks like I can hang onto my time.

Aren't all videogames a waste of time? Isn't every second you spend on anything that doesn't make the world a better place a waste of time? Loosen up!

Wow, you have an interestingly skewed perspective of how this place operates and how its members (including yourself) are perceived by we administrators.

It's never been a matter of sacrifice or any possibility for people to leave over such a quibble. (I'm fascinated with the fact that you came to those conclusions.) We make most all of our decisions based on what we believe is best for the site and the community, not based on fears and compromise.

We try always to abide by the spirit of the snuff guideline, which is: no gratuitous death nor death without "adequate" redeeming value. The only variable and, albeit, sometimes arbitrary factor is what that degree of adequacy is on any given video.

It's an obvious fact that many things on VideoSift are necessarily decided on a case-by-case basis, and if your main issue is that you demand we tighten up the wording of our guidelines as to expel any hint of arbitrariness, we could word it "Nothing is allowed in any video unless the administrators explicitly say so." Or you could loosen up a little and accept this site as-is, including aspects you do and don't agree with.

Remember that our guidelines do not represent a legally binding contract. They're called "guidelines" rather than "rules" for a reason.

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^Duckman33:
Observe the woman's behavior. Does she seem to be in duress? Does she seem to be an unwilling participant in any way, shape, or form? Does the guy not say "Ive never done this before, so..." indicating, I'm assuming, that he's never hit a woman before?
I'm fairly confident after watching this twice this is some sort of drinking game that she chose to participate in, knowing full well the consequences for said participation, judging from her willingness to let him hit her. I don't see anyone holding her there, forcing her to get hit. I see no malicious intent here. Y'all need to loosen up a bit.

No, actually. I don't need to. My opinion is that this video is a piece of pure shit. And yes, I have exactly the same view of those moronic pieces where it's two guys pulling this assinine crap. Stupidity and abuse is stupidity and abuse no matter the genders involved.
You don't like my opinion, that's on you. It's not my problem, and I really don't give a shit whether you agree or not that abusive, violent shit is wrong.
I -will- say that the more common this kind of crap becomes, the less time I'll be spending here. I've got better uses for my limited time.


Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out then. It made me laugh. Sorry my low brow humor falls far beneath your standards. I'll try harder next time to please you. Oh wait, I forgot, I don't care if you are pleased or not. By the way did I direct my comment towards you in particular? No I didn't, so why are you getting a huffy about it? Never said I didn't like your opinion, I said people need to lighten up a bit. And judging from this comment that still applies.

[Edit] FYI my comment was for the folks claiming this was some sort of spousal abuse, or control scenario, not folks who didn't like it because it wasn't their cup of tea humor wise by the way. So this reply IMO is just as stupid/ignorant as this video is to you.