His theory, or argument, was based on gross misinterpretations of Christian doctrine. It would be like if I said that videosift is a morally bankrupt website because the majority of its videos are child pornography. Of course this is patently untrue so all I have there is a strawman argument. I have painted videosift as something it isn't so I can trash and attack its character. This is the same thing Sam Harris is doing. He has painted Christianity as something that it isn't and trashed and attacked its character based on distortions and untruths. It sounds very persuasive if you are not actually familiar with the subject material. Sam is presenting himself as an authority on the subject but as I showed in my reply he lacks even a grasp of the very basics. If you feel my refutation is inadequate in any way, please specifically show me where.

The convincing evidence I have received is personal revelation. To know God He must reveal Himself to you, otherwise you won't know anything about God. Why do you think its impossible that there is a God? Do you have any church background?

"Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera."

No one died in this video (though there were fatalities during this accident). This video has been played during several news broadcasts and linked to several online print news articles like http://www.theage.com.au/world/bad-brakes-cited-in-moscow-crash-landing-20121230-2c140.html, and think qualifies as educational over entertainment.

I'm really not sure what to say here because on one hand people want certain kinds of very violent porn. Are they (porn actresses) not briefed on "This film will contain choking, slapping, etc etc"?

The problem is these abuses happen in ALL workplaces but since you're already fucking it makes it almost impossible to decide in black and white standards.

I think these people need to have their own private managers on set with them if things start to go awry where they say no they want to stop etc they can be their advocate and put an end to what is happening. Getting government involved will just make things worse.

The entire PORN industry is not that bad because there are many women who do porn their entire lives and love it.

I think one of the REAL problems is the Owner/Operator that really seems to be happening. A very wealthy guy who wants to fuck hot chicks just has to film himself now and voila it's not prostitution it's pornography.

If there is an entire set of people (IE Not just people getting fucked and one guy with the camera) nobody would stand by and watch these things happen.

No 47! You're disguised as the fluffer!

oh, and remember that guy is like, head of a child pornography ring or something. He's the bad guy. Its a shame you had to kill all those innocent people to get to him though.

So google searches are never pertinent in case of this type? Only for those case by which the computer is instrumental? No exceptions? I wonder if there is a principle which can be drawn.

>> ^bareboards2:

@Trancecoach, maybe if we changed the crime from rape, a notoriously difficult situation under any circumstance, to some other crime.
Because when the crime is rape, and a woman's sexual activities outside the actual event are introduced, things get hairy.
So. Push the reset button. Let's pick another crime and see if google searches are pertinent.
Building a bomb. How did they learn how to build the bomb? Did they search the internet for sources of materials? Did they order the materials online? Yeah, I'll say a subpoena for that information is in order.
Child pornography. Yeah, I think you are going to need the computer for that.
Organizing a terrorist cell. Yeah, email records, I think that is admissible evidence in court.
Even the judge in this case found the subpoena for her google searches and her journals that recorded her healing process after the rape to be inappropriate and voided them.
I glad she had that judge. Who restricted the case to the physical evidence of assault.

@Trancecoach, maybe if we changed the crime from rape, a notoriously difficult situation under any circumstance, to some other crime.

Because when the crime is rape, and a woman's sexual activities outside the actual event are introduced, things get hairy.

So. Push the reset button. Let's pick another crime and see if google searches are pertinent.

Building a bomb. How did they learn how to build the bomb? Did they search the internet for sources of materials? Did they order the materials online? Yeah, I'll say a subpoena for that information is in order.

Child pornography. Yeah, I think you are going to need the computer for that.

Organizing a terrorist cell. Yeah, email records, I think that is admissible evidence in court.

Even the judge in this case found the subpoena for her google searches and her journals that recorded her healing process after the rape to be inappropriate and voided them.

I glad she had that judge. Who restricted the case to the physical evidence of assault.

Well there's plenty of places to go for jack-off fuel. Unless you're the type of guy in a titty bar trying to look down the cocktail waitress's blouse, if you want to handle business you go somewhere that brokers your own specific kind of wonderful smut.

It's your site, I'm just trying to help with generalizing the rules to these abstract and subjective ideas like "pornography". But where the line is hazy, I always tend to vote away from censorship >> ^dag:

That's true - and a valid point. I guess it comes down to VideoSift's raison d'etre - jack off fuel or entertaining, thought provoking videos and good conversation?
>> ^rottenseed:
@spoco2 "merit" is funny word...
@dag there is no shortage of this kind of stuff on the Internet - why does VideoSift have to be one more dump for it?
Take a look at the top 15...there's plenty of that kind of stuff on the internet...

I don't think you should transpose how you feel the sift should be (not just you but in general)...it's not an individual's call. As far as pornography...as somebody that looks at it every day, not joking here, I masturbate to internet porn daily so I'm kind of a connoisseur, this is not porn. Would I show it to my mother? no. Then again, that's me. I would say this does walk some sort of line. Some might claim "slippery slope" others might cry "CENSORSHIP!" and both sides will be right and wrong at the same time.

What is a sure thing, though, keeping this on videosift won't change anything. The controversy will die off by Tuesday and it'll all be forgotten until it'll used as precedence in the next debate about some overtly provocative advertisement. Also I wouldn't view Vimeo as a propagator of pornography, so in some cases I think it's ok to use one of our accepted video hosts as a proxy for posting criterion.

[edit] no disrespect by the first part, I was speaking towards everybody here >> ^spoco2:

>> ^pumkinandstorm:
Sorry, but this is just fucking sad.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that because you had the sarcasm checkbox on... but my issue with this is that it's got zero merit other than being titillation. You said in your description of the video "In my opinion a really cool and original idea for an ad" What? Since when is using sex to sell something cool or original? It's neither. And as said before, this doesn't use the naked women in ANY clever way to sell what it's supposed to. It's a video of attractive women being naked, rubbing each other and kissing and that's it.
The sift should be above this. There's nothing wrong with sex and nudity, but to be here they should really have a point. This has none other than to arouse people. If there had been some clever or funny way that the nudity was worked into bike rental, then sure, that might warrant inclusion, but as it stands it's a not clever, not original, pretty sad example of someone in advertising going "Nope, I got nothing, let's just go with 'sex sells' shall we?"

Here are some interesting articles regarding the erotica versus porn debate.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201104/what-distinguishes-erotica-pornography

http://varietypages.jamiedebree.com/2011/02/24/sex-on-the-page-porn-vs-erotica.aspx

http://www.jessink.com/porn_vs_erotica.htm

I had to look up the "We oppose the teaching of...critical thinking skills." bit.

"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

But they do support beating snot-nosed punks at least...
"Classroom Discipline –We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas."

But damn it, they want to illegalize pornography, this cannot stand!
"Addictive Behaviors – We encourage state and federal governments to severely prosecute illegal dealers and manufacturers of addictive substances and pornography. We urge Congress to discourage import of such substances into our country. Faith based rehabilitation programs should be emphasized. We oppose legalization of illicit drugs. We support an effective abstinence-based educational program for children. We oppose any “needle exchange” program. We urge vigorous enforcement of our DUI laws."

Anyway, even if they didn't mean to include the words "critical thinking skills", they still don't want people to have the ability to reevaluate fixed-beliefs. Which require critical thinking skills. Damn, they accidentally said what they meant.

>> ^mxxcon:

It's a video for some #уберизадругом (убери за другом) (clean up after a friend) competition/campaign.
I guess they want some funny videos of pointing out where people throw garbage(or dog shit) on the street or otherwise make Moscow(or Russia?) dirty.
btw https://www.google.com/search?q=i
2;ария+Ивакова is the owner of that youtube channel.
How disappointing. I preferred thinking that this was some kind of obscure pornography.

child pornography is the root of all evil

>> ^chingalera:

snuff


No human fatalities occur in this video. Therefore, per the videosift guidelines, it is not considered as "snuff".

"Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera."

I saw this video about a week or so ago. I thought about sifting for the policewoman's heroism and her nonchalance, but ultimately decided that this was basically a snuff film.

So, I downvote as well. It is an amazing video, if true, though.>> ^SDGundamX:

Yeah, I downvoted. I don't believe videos like this contribute anything of value to the Sift. There are plenty of other sites where you can go to watch people getting horribly maimed or killed. VideoSift shouldn't be one of them, IMO.
As a reminder from the VideoSift submission guidelines:

3. Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).
Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.

Yeah, I downvoted. I don't believe videos like this contribute anything of value to the Sift. There are plenty of other sites where you can go to watch people getting horribly maimed or killed. VideoSift shouldn't be one of them, IMO.

As a reminder from the VideoSift submission guidelines:

3. Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.