It doesn't surprise me at all about the customers' reactions to the change in corn dog taste. It's the same reason people go to McDonald's when they're on vacation. Yeah, they might have traveled a thousand miles for a change of scenery, but familiar tastes are comforting at a primal level.

On an almost completely unrelated note, have you ever seen The Corndog Man? If you want to see something bizarre and wickedly funny, then you might like it. I emphasize might because it's gotten mixed reviews from the people I've known who've seen it. For example, one friend of mine loved it, but his wife fucking hated it. I mean she was mad at him for even renting it. So be warned. YMMV

Wow... Just fucking wow...


A few points:

The video's description incorrectly notes the date. An extremely minor point, but a factual one nonetheless.

I fully believe that this sentence is, as the defense attorney alluded to, a complete miscarriage of justice. I fully believe that the defendant should have been offered a plea deal. Like the judge, I can not understand why plea deals are offered to some but not others. In this case, it certainly seems warranted.

Someone mentioned that the judge doesn't give a shit, but I wouldn't expect the judge to give a shit. The judge is on the bench to act as an impartial mediator between the prosecution, defense and presumably impartial jury. The judge may very well feel for this defendant, as well as others he has had to impose similar sentences upon. It would not surprise me if this judge (as well as others in the state of Nevada) undergo some form of therapy, be it expensive psychiatry or heavy drinking or primal screaming. I feel for the judge who imposes such an unwarranted sentence and is not left with a scar upon their psyche.

For those America-bashers that are going to use this as another example of how fucked-up the United States of America is (and have attempted already), I say this:
Nevada is just one state out of fifty that comprise this nation.
The United States Constitution grants rights and powers to the individual states in matters where the values and moral compass differs from region to region due to differences in background, ethnicity and national origin.
Nevada was originally settled by Mormons, which are a somewhat extreme sect of Christianity. Some believe the Mormon church to be a cult. It is widely known that the church was founded by a person with a criminal background and that the church as a whole engages in some suspect practices.
That said, Mormons chose to impose their morality upon others within the states they helped found, specifically Utah and Nevada, but also other states to a lesser extent.

The moral standards of Mormons are not considered by sensible-thinking people as reasonable. However, it is also the basis for the laws of the state of Nevada, like it or not. The law and its associated sentences has been challenged for constitutionality and the challenge has failed. I suspect the failure of previous challenges is running up against the same old Mormon guard that still pervades the state legislature, but I have no evidence of this.
Regardless, the draconian punishment that is set in law in the state of Nevada is one glaring (and pretty fucked-up) example of how one group's morality is imposed on those around them through legislative process.
Good or bad, it is how our system of government works.

Welcome to the Republic.



Yes, I wholly get the irony of Mormons imposing a life sentence for this sort of sexual misconduct while they turn a blind eye to polygamy and incestual relations.
However, that is not the subject of this debate, however poignant that irony may be.

Snooty neighborhood or something? I dunno, I never really have this problem and I walk a lot. The one I hate is when you both decide to dodge each other in the same direction and you end up back in front of each other... There's some primal timing to our brains that makes us all react to this at exactly the same time, because once you do it it takes an extremely fast set of reflexes, hair-trigger critical thinking and shear luck to un-dodge dance with each other.

>> ^blankfist:
I was raised not to hit women. In my core I think it's wrong, though I think it's a terribly biased and arcane belief. Once in high school during a breakup my ex-girlfriend started wailing on me and trying desperately to kick me in the nuts. I wanted to defend myself, but felt I couldn't outside trying to catch her arms before they hit me.
I think in the deep recesses of my mind, I watch this and feel some sense of perverted justice for all the times a girl was violent against me and I felt I couldn't retaliate.
Also, how many times has a woman put your ass in danger by mouthing off to some dude? And all of a sudden you have to fight to defend her honor or some crazy archaic primal bullshit like that.


I was raised the same way, but whenever something like that happened to me, I found the best possible way to resolve the situation (And I actually mean this in all seriousness)

Was a hug.

After a few seconds of taking a hit or two, I'd grab an arm, spin them so their back was to me and hold their arms in a "Hug" type of stance.

It was almost an instant de-escalator. They're either forced to talk about why they were taking swings at me in the first place, or too embarrassed to keep going because they got beat by a hug.

In this situation mind you, I don't think the hug would go so well.

I was raised not to hit women. In my core I think it's wrong, though I think it's a terribly biased and arcane belief. Once in high school during a breakup my ex-girlfriend started wailing on me and trying desperately to kick me in the nuts. I wanted to defend myself, but felt I couldn't outside of trying to catch her arms before they hit me.

I think in the deep recesses of my mind, I watch this and feel some sense of perverted justice for all the times a girl was violent against me and I felt I couldn't retaliate.

Also, how many times has a woman put your ass in danger by mouthing off to some dude? And all of a sudden you have to fight to defend her honor or some crazy archaic primal bullshit like that.

i hate to break up the boy tit for tat fest, but this isnt about "its ok to make fun of christians and noone else" OR "haha look people who pray are stupid" at all

but whats news about this is
1. this prayer meeting will work fantastically with these particular senators BASE
so, theyre basically exploiting their faith and manipulating the faithful for political gain, but its also incredibly stupid because it will only rally support with their BASE, everyone else will be offended.
2. theyre not actually bringing up anything thats ACTUALLY in the bill, thats dishonest and more manipulation to rally support
3. the prayer leaders are morally embattled and morally ambiguous, these are not safe, mainstream religious leaders, these are a particularly racist, homophobic, lying, greedy lot... that makes it an interesting choice
4. their political strategy for stopping legislation to pass is a creepy, lying prayer circle broadcast over the internet. this is insulting to their base, insulting to their god, and insulting to the internet.
5. this plays to the basest of emotions and undermines .. well everything. when you gain political power by appealing to the most primal, base emotions and by lying and manipulating the ignorant, well you've gotten greedy and disconnected and its time your term ended.

theyre basically using the context of a faithful gathering, a prayer circle to spread lies and fear.
which, btw, is why religion is mocked on videosift. because this is by no stretch of the imagination, out of the ordinary.

It's like primal version of "Red Light, Green Light."

so this was odd for me and a bit tough to watch. I'm just a tiny bit drunk (not hammered, but nicely buzzed) and there were so many satisfying bits in this that it felt creepy. for some reason when they take something stupid and random to it's completion, it feels like a primal urge in me is fulfilled. odd, i know, but there it is.

Well, that was kinda scarey in a primal way.

I was sixteen at the time, and had gone through life hating them both with a passion that's hard to explain to someone who's never lived under a dictatorship. I must admit I cheered and clapped when I heard they were dead, and even seeing the shameful way they were killed didn't diminish the primal scream of joy we all let out when we knew for certain they were both dead and there was no going back to the dark days. After a few weeks, I felt embarrassed and ashamed at having cheered the deaths of two old people, vicious though they may been - and I think that's the way most people felt after a while.
The way Romanian politics works though, if he were alive he'd be in Parliament now, so...
Shameful bloody trial though. Further reading, if you're interested:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/19/ceausescu-1989-romania-revolution

"if everyone followed the teachings of jesus christ, that we have have peace on earth..."
That has to be the biggest douchebag comment I've heard in a long time. People (attempting to) follow the teachings of jesus has caused more bloodshed throughout history than is ever redeemable through the sum of the benefits provided by religion. I'll give O'Reilly a thesis of my own, basic human morals are not derived from religion, rather has been corrupted by it since ancient times. Morals such as, please don't kill me for thinking differently as you. Humans are social creatures, so we have a primal conscience to be (relatively) kind to one another, because it is necessary for survival. As such, translations of interpretations of old bedtime stories has no authority dictating what is considered right and wrong.

Ok now that i'm genuinely pissed off, all I have left to say is, although I think Dawkins' work is of noble intent, at the end of the day, he will accomplish nothing. Directly attacking people who have been brainwashed for their entire life is not going to change their minds. The only way to rid American society of the stranglehold of religious ignorance is through better education and perhaps cutting off funding for major institutions that promote irrational thinking (that would be you, Discovery Institute).

I think very few of these cops are actually evil or have any ill intent towards the public's right to assembly. They're just stupid.

What do you expect from a group of people with barely a high school education who are asked to deal regularly with psychologically distressing situations? These are not people who have the intellectual depth to make sense of their day to day lives. These are people pushed to the edge of primal instinct by the nature of their jobs. Then you give them an order to carry out maneuvers that they've been trained to perform without thought and set them up with the psychological mindset that everyone not wearing a uniform is the enemy. If you ask them to intellectualize the situation they're in, they're too dumb to do anything but scowl at you and make threats.

Cops acting stupidly is not the root of the problem. They're the symptom of a problem that's resulted from the slow deterioration of your liberties by well intentioned bureaucrats over decades.

Furthermore, these morons facing off in the street against cops are nothing more than thrill seekers. If you actually care about reversing the legal minimalisation of your right to assemble then the only effective way is through legislation. That's how your rights were taken away and that's the only way to get them back.

See I don't understand why Richard Dawkins keeps banging this drum. Maybe because of how vocal he is, he keeps getting confronted by Christian and creationist viewpoints and so he feels he needs to fight back, but really he's never going to win anyone over with that method of communication. He is highly respected by people in the scientific community and is pretty much preaching to the converted. Anyone who's ever been won over by the logic of science and the evidence, and evolution is pretty unlikely to be swung over to the dark side, and anyone strongly swayed by promises of eternal hell, and punishment for lack of faith or doubt, and promise of heavenly eternal reward and who truly believes these things is pretty damn unlikely to change their mind. So both sides will be pretty stubborn and he's only likely to appeal by connecting with the more emotional and primal side and dare I say it religious side of someone's nature before he could even have a hope in hell's chance of swaying their view. Besides this he just doesn't have the charisma. He's logical, respected by scientists, quite arrogant (perhaps rightly so), and in short he has none of the qualities required to change someone's mind who thinks in completely different terms and operates on such a completely different wavelength to him. I do feel he'd be better expending his energy on being a great scientist and furthering the cause of science and not wasting his effort fighting against religion.

This taps some kind of primal fear inside me. I think that's where the Lovecraft beasts are waiting to emerge. I get uncomfortable just watching the clip.

At my school we had a tradition called primal scream. Everyone met on the quad at midnight the night before final exams began and screamed as loud as they could at the stroke of 12. There were usually fire jugglers, dancers, and breathers. And of course a plethora of streakers. Oh the streakers. One semester the streakers stormed the library to remind everyone too wrapped up in studying that we were there not just to put our noses to the grind stone 24 hours a day but to come together and celebrate ourselves and our world. Upvote for the memories and a reminder of the sense of community that one frequently loses after college...f*ck now my depressed.