search results matching tag: posing

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (288)     Sift Talk (13)     Blogs (20)     Comments (1000)   

Ex-Abu Ghraib Prisoner Speaks Out On Abuse

newtboy says...

So wait....are you saying we should overlook numerous war crimes and international kidnapping because it was done in the name of fighting an enemy we created that never posed the threat we claimed he did, but was a dictatorial asshole that killed and tortured thousands (making it ok for us to emulate him), and ignore that our actions also killed hundreds of thousands and destabilized the middle east, creating Daesh, starting numerous civil wars, now disastrously effecting all Europe?


Yes, I think you're wrong. Only a hand full of soldiers who were caught by their own stupidity of posting photos of them abusing prisoners were discharged, I don't think any high ranking officers who created and fostered the abusive practices.
https://www.salon.com/2006/03/14/prosecutions_convictions/

It wasn't a few bad apples, it was the "standard desirable practice"....a practice Bush strongly defended and Trump has said he wants to return to, and at least the 1/4 of America that brainlessly loves him agrees.
Personally, I think we should have left any American that participated in this in Iraq, especially the officers in charge...soldiers have a duty to refuse illegal or immoral orders, and ordering torture is absolutely illegal and immoral.

bcglorf said:

I must say I believe, and hope I'm right, that the crowd that sees this and says that looks great is a lot smaller than you believe.

Controversy might be more numerous around the anti-war crowd citing Abu-Ghraib as proof the Iraq war in it's entirety was wrong and evil. There are a lot of people who observe that Saddam did much worse, for much longer, and as standard desirable practice of governance, myself included. I dare say the number of people believing that greatly outnumber the pro-torture crowd.

Still important for America to hold itself more accountable on this. Am I not wrong but most of those involved who even were charged mostly got off with dishonorable discharges?

Homeopathy Explained – Gentle Healing or Reckless Fraud?

ChaosEngine says...

Hmmm, even though I love Kurzgesagt and this is an informative video. There are easy answers to the questions posed at the start.

How does homeopathy work? It doesn't.
How did it become what it is today? People are easily swindled.
What can modern medicine learn from it? NOTHING.

Yeah, they go on to talk about viewing the patient as a person, etc, but that is not that important. I don't want my doctor sitting down and having a chat with everyone, I want them to treat them and move on to the next patient. Maybe when we get to our AI-led post-scarcity utopia, but right now, medicine (like everything else) is a game of finite resources. Do you really want to waste the time of a highly trained (and highly paid) medical professional? Because while they're talking to you about your vague sense of unease, someone else is dying.

16 seconds: The Killing of Anita Kurmann

newtboy says...

True, but that's not all it says....
The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited, incidental portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary that encompasses a much broader narrative. 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.

As the fatal accident was the central point of the video and not incidental, and the video may or may not be considered lengthy and or news, I thought it a reasonable question to pose to the community.
To clarify, it was intended as a question not an accusation.

Buttle said:

According to the FAQ, snuff is defined as the depiction of loss of human life for the purposes of entertainment. Human fatalities alone do not define "snuff".

The Tragedy of Jon Stewart

newtboy jokingly says...

At this point, I'm fairly certain Bob is really a Russian hacker/propagandist named Dimitri posing as an insulting parody of the worst kind of hyper partisan willingly gullible American "conservative".

Stormsinger said:

You forget that Bob's one of the Foxnews wingnuts. He wouldn't know real news if it fucking bit him. When all you watch is fictional propaganda, then of course comedy and satire seem like just another flavor. All that matters in his view is the end slant...if it's "for" the GOP, then it's good, otherwise it's a lie.

Primitive Technology: New area starting from scratch

notarobot says...

Cassowary attacks

Cassowaries have a reputation in folklore for being dangerous to people and domestic animals. During World War II American and Australian troops stationed in New Guinea were warned to steer clear of them. In his book Living Birds of the World from 1958, ornithologist Ernest Thomas Gilliard wrote:

The inner or second of the three toes is fitted with a long, straight, murderous nail which can sever an arm or eviscerate an abdomen with ease. There are many records of natives being killed by this bird.

This assessment of the danger posed by cassowaries has been repeated in print by authors including Gregory S. Paul (1988) and Jared Diamond (1997). A 2003 historical study of 221 cassowary attacks showed that 150 had been against humans. 75% of these had been from cassowaries that had been fed by people. 71% of the time the bird had chased or charged the victim. 15% of the time they kicked. Of the attacks, 73% involved the birds expecting or snatching food, 5% involved defending natural food sources, 15% involved defending themselves from attack, and 7% involved defending their chicks or eggs. The 150 attacks included only one human death.

The one documented human death was caused by a cassowary on 6 April 1926. 16-year-old Phillip McClean and his brother, aged 13, came across a cassowary on their property and decided to try to kill it by striking it with clubs. The bird kicked the younger boy, who fell and ran away as his older brother struck the bird. The older McClean then tripped and fell to the ground. While he was on the ground the cassowary kicked him in the neck, opening a 1.25 cm (0.49 in) wound which may have severed his jugular vein. The boy died of his injuries shortly afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary

Sheriff Steve Prator, Unwittingly Admits Modern Day Slavery

Jinx says...

Care to give the context? Because I can only read it as the "good of the bad ones that behave", but his complaint nonetheless seems to be that the prison will lose valuable labour NOT that these particular inmates release will pose a danger to the public.

bobknight33 said:

Out of context. Typical leftest methods .

Whale Of A Photobomb

Bill Maher - Penn Jillette on Libertarianism

heropsycho says...

It depends on who the potential winning candidates are. If neither poses an apparent threat to democracy, the US, or the rest of the world, I have no problem with it.

When one candidate is a Trump or worse, I think it is completely irresponsible not to do everything you can to stop that candidate from winning, even if it's an epic nose holding if you really hate the other candidate.

And Trump is that bad. I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton. I trashed her on the email thing. And she doesn't take strong stands on things she absolutely should, like against big banks and what not. But she absolutely would not have emboldened racists and neo-nazis. She would not encourage hatred of the press and opponents to the point of dog whistling potential violence. I know that's a really low bar, but you can't have a functioning democracy without opposition that can feel free to oppose, a media that can resport basic facts without threats and being disbelieved simply because they report info contrary to what the President wants to be true, etc.

This was one of those elections that voting third party was simply not an ethical choice. Trump never hid what he was before he got elected. He was all these things in a very apparent way.

I am a moderate with no allegiance to any party. And I can say voting wise I did everything I could to stop Trump. I voted for the best chance against Trump in the primaries for my state, and I voted for Clinton in the general. I just wish more people did the same, because I think a year from now we are going to realize in a very big way how we really should have done everything we could to have stopped him from becoming president.

MilkmanDan said:

On the other hand, I think it is fine (honorable even?) to vote your conscious and vote for a third party candidate that has no actual chance of winning, even if you're in a tightly contested swing state.

Liberal Redneck - Transgender Patriots and the GOP

Jinx says...

So

I don't know how it is in the states, but in this country if you want to go through gender reassignment you will get it for free on the NHS. Its a long road, it isn't easy, they make it hard etc, but like anything else that poses a risk to somebodies health it is paid for by the state. I feel like a lot of people consider reassignment a sort of frivolous sex thing but being unable to escape the body in which you are born is, you know, desperately depressing. I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that surgery and hormone treatment are potentially lifesaving, and certainly greatly improve the quality of life in most cases.

Couple of things I don't understand - Is this the military saying they will no longer pay for treatments associated with gender reassignment, or is this a blanket ban on transgender men and women from serving in the military? One wonders why the military can't spend even a fraction of the amount is spends on toys on its servicemen/women...

Anyhoo. It's a distraction. Not trying to suggest that it is a minor thing for those affected, but I really think this is to divert the left and win back support from the right. It sucks dreadfully that a minority group is again used as target for political maneuvering and it is worthy of resistance but I can't help but feel we are playing into their hand by doing so.

@bobknight33 I pity you.

MilkmanDan said:

@CrushBug -- Very good arguments in favor of absorbing the cost, even IF hormone therapy / gender reassignment is paid for by the military / government.

@entr0py -- Links that I've read from conventional news outlets claim that hormone therapy and gender reassignment were covered by military healthcare IF a doctor signed off on them as being medically necessary. An article I read about Chelsea Manning specifically stated that the hormone therapy was definitely paid for by the military, but that it wasn't 100% clear who paid the bill for her gender reassignment. I can't find that exact article, but here's another one from 2015 that suggests the same things:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/12/chelsea-manning-hormone-therapy/23311813/

Another article I read said that Obama issued an order / proclamation / whatever that the military would pay for those things if they were deemed medically necessary, which was a change from the former system (not covered). Not sure when/if that went into effect, but I think it must have. I'll look and see if I can find a link to that one.

I'm not saying that my info is right and yours is wrong, but it seems unclear. They (gender reassignment and hormone therapy) definitely weren't covered for a long time, but it seems like the hormone therapy was for sure at least in Manning's case.

Again, just to my personal opinion, I think the old system of "welcome to serve but we ain't paying for that stuff" was fine (ideal?). CrushBug presents a good argument for the military absorbing those costs since they are such a tiny fraction of the military budget (even though trans soldiers are arguably also a tiny fraction of the total).

Strangely enough, I'd pretty happily agree to those services being covered (if deemed medically necessary) as part of single-payer universal health care available to ALL CITIZENS. That would still be paying for them with tax dollars, but not tax dollars earmarked for military, which seems better to me somehow.

And again, I think Trump is 100% in the wrong for barring trans people from service simply for being trans. I agree that he's really just trying to rile up his base and trigger their righteous indignation. But, I do still basically think that the military paying for those services (or viagra / hair transplants / botox / cosmetic stuff, etc.) out of their budget is wrong. Even if amounts to a drop in the ocean that is military spending.

What happens when a wild wolf approaches a pet dog

TheFreak says...

I think this narration makes a lot of assumptions.

That wolf was never domesticated. Domestication is a genetic adaptation that involves retaining juvenile traits that allow an animal to overcome the boundary that would instinctively cause them to flee or fight. This would take many generations. You can imagine how that adaptation would be advantageous to animals that benefit from living at the edges of human settlement.

There's no way to know why that wolf interacted the way it did but it was wild and posed a potential risk due to it's instinctive programming.

Happy that it remained an uplifting story. But it's not responsible to spread the narrative that you can domesticate a wild animal.

Cop Pepper Spraying Teenage Girl

Jerykk says...

I don't really understand why you think that ordering her to sit down would have somehow made her cooperate. The video shows her repeatedly ignoring everything the cops say. Her behavior wouldn't just magically change if the cops said "I order you to sit down." You even said yourself that an irrational girl isn't going to act rational.

As for her posing "zero threat," that's not true at all. She was throwing a tantrum and kicking the cops. They needed to detain her because she was a suspect in a crime and she was physically resisting, posing a threat to others and herself. Just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean they are harmless.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. You may have the legal right to ignore a cop that isn't officially arresting you but from a practical standpoint, that's a pretty stupid thing to do. It makes much more sense to be civil and cooperative, just like in any other interaction with human beings.

The fact that you proudly proclaim that you don't talk to cops shows a pretty clear bias against cops. Then you say you hope you get arrested so you can make money. With that mentality, it's pretty clear that you aren't interested in peaceful resolutions.

newtboy said:

I do. If they told her to sit, and she sat, problems solved.
She continuously said "don't touch me". They didn't need to if they told her to sit instead of letting her get on her bike and ride it. She clearly had an issue with being touched, they could have recognized that and used it, instead they exacerbated things.
You are expecting an irrational girl to act rationally. Impossible. That doesn't make her right.

You are also focusing on the part that, while more harsh than necessary imo, was understandable and you're intentionally ignoring the part most people find outrageous, macing her when she posed zero threat. Defend that.

If I'm not under arrest, I'm leaving. I don't talk to cops, so I'll be no help in their investigation anyway, none at all. I hope I get arrested for that, I can use the money.

Again, if her being injured was really a concern, pushing her over her bike, against a wall, to the ground, then carrying her like they did is the worst possible thing they could do...so I think the 'for her safety' thing is pure bullshit.

Cop Pepper Spraying Teenage Girl

newtboy says...

I do. If they told her to sit, and she sat, problems solved.
She continuously said "don't touch me". They didn't need to if they told her to sit instead of letting her get on her bike and ride it. She clearly had an issue with being touched, they could have recognized that and used it, instead they exacerbated things.
You are expecting an irrational girl to act rationally. Impossible. That doesn't make her right.

You are also focusing on the part that, while more harsh than necessary imo, was understandable and you're intentionally ignoring the part most people find outrageous, macing her when she posed zero threat. Defend that.

If I'm not under arrest, I'm leaving. I don't talk to cops, so I'll be no help in their investigation anyway, none at all. I hope I get arrested for that, I can use the money.

Again, if her being injured was really a concern, pushing her over her bike, against a wall, to the ground, then carrying her like they did is the worst possible thing they could do...so I think the 'for her safety' thing is pure bullshit.

greatgooglymoogly said:

If you really think this would have been prevented by one simple command from the officer, you are clearly not looking at this objectively. The other officer is talking to her on the bike when the camera-wearer walks up, and she just walks away from the conversation. She had no interest in talking to them and a simple request wasn't going to change that.
"Also, detained is not under arrest. You are under zero obligation to submit to detention."
Wrong. Investigatory detention is a thing, and not always voluntary. When they announced they were detaining her she should have let them cuff her without resisting.

https://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/how-long-can-police-detain-you/

The other person trying to help her who is later warned to back off even tells her "don't make it worse than it is". As the girl began to overreact more and more the cops could have tried to get this man to calm her down and explain how things work and that it was in her best interests to cooperate.

I think the reason they were so insistent on getting her parents down there instead of just her identification was that they are legally required to release a minor to the parents' custody if an injury is possible. They are responsible for her health after detaining her, and if she had a broken vertebrae or something not obviously visible from the crash and they just let her walk away, then they definitely would get sued if there was a later complication. An adult can refuse medical care, a child cannot. Blame the lawyers, not the cops here.

With so many better examples of terrible policing easily found, it's odd that this one is so popular.

Cop Pepper Spraying Teenage Girl

newtboy says...

If she was trying to escape, she wasn't trying hard. She looked like she was slowly riding circles to me.
When, exactly, do you hear them tell her to stay? I don't here them say anything of the sort before she's handcuffed, not that I think she was trying to leave.

Being detained for cooperation of investigation? You do not have to submit to handcuffing and detention without a suspected crime, and "cooperation of investigation" is not a crime I've ever heard of. Detention is not arrest, so she wasn't resisting arrest.

Because I warn you I'm going to shoot you if you don't do something, that makes it OK if I do? Hmmmm. They can legally use spray and tasers in self defense, but should not be allowed to use them as a coercion technique. She posed no threat seated in the car handcuffed, so there was no legitimate use of force, and certainly no legitimate use of weaponry.

Again, this was only detention, not arrest. I've never heard of anyone charged with resisting detention.

bcglorf said:

I'm gonna have to side with Sagemind on this and disagree. First interaction right on video with the officers there is her trying to leave the scene. They tell her to stay, and she just tries to escape anyway. At this point she IS being detained. She fights and struggles against them the entire remainder of the video. That's resisting arrest. Not once do the cops use anything resembling excessive force. Even the pepper spray at the very end is warned 2(3?) times before being used.

Sorry, but the right to actively fight and resist arrest does not exist and I do not believe it should. If you forcefully resist arrest the police not only may, but should use force to make the arrest.

Why It's Almost Impossible to Run a Two-Hour Marathon

dannym3141 says...

At no point in the video was there an explanation that came close to answering why it is almost impossible to run a two hour marathon. Or why only a handful of people could ever come close to it.

In fact, a lot of parts seem like they were created in a rush. At one point he says that mid 60s is "nowhere near" 70 or 80. When the average is 40? Is the scale logarithmic? If so it wasn't mentioned.

I'm very grateful for the information i did learn in the video, it was a nice little bit of info about running and runners. But it fell far short of investigating the 2 hour mile or answering the questions it posed. I wish videosift will not become a home for clickbait.

noims (Member Profile)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon