Your video, Gordon Ramsey Vs. James May, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Gordon Ramsey James May' to 'Gordon Ramsey, James May' - edited by critical_d

Sorry this is so long in response--I forgot I wanted to respond and it is an ocd compulsion of mine... Seriously... I have OCD... (Now I have free time to write Yay.)

To the suspect topic, OJ Simpson was a forgone conclusion...Ramsey's parents were too. Casey Anthony's mother... Etc. These suspects were all the intense, single-minded already-formed conclusions that investigators focused on---to their tunnel vision.

A suspect is far more than just a person with a few

So what we are talking about really is what the police said? Well, reversing the situation, as you suggest, lets say the kid shot a police dog in the backyard and claimed self defense. What would the police say? I don't know and neither do you. What would his parents say? It was self defense? You bet your ass. A clean shoot? Sure. But lets say the kid brags about it and the parents find out later--they may do the right thing and snitch the child out.

But you bet your ass they would come out to little Johnny's defense early...

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
A "suspect" is an already forming conclusion which, by your logic, is an outrage perhaps?
They call it a "good shot" but then, let's pretend, a neighbor comes out and says the officers laughed about it later and noted how they weren't afraid, that changes things. It is mandatory procedure that every time a gun is pulled an investigation stays open for a certain period of time. Just like when child services come to your house, even when somebody reported you falsely--they still open the file and keep it open for their own protection...

A suspect has nothing to with a conclusion or "my logic." A suspect is just that, a suspect, there is no conclusion formed. If the situation was reversed, say a father shoots a police dog claiming it attacked his kid playing in his yard. There certainly would be an investigation as to whether the father was really was defending his family. The father would be the suspect of the investigation, but the police wouldn't comment to the press that it's still under investigation AND say it was a good shoot. In that situation, they would say they can't comment on an open investigation.
But in this situation the cop shot a family pet. There should be an impartial investigation as to whether it was justified. This BS line they give saying it was a good shoot, but it's still under investigation is basically them saying that there is no investigation, we've already concluded that no matter what, the cop did nothing wrong.

I want to work wherever these guys do... paid to shoot cabbages at buckets in Skyrim for 3 hours?!? No wonder that guy's computer in the background at 3:11 says "win"!

EDIT: Ah, they're Machinima makers Geoff Ramsey and Gavin Free (both of Red vs. Blue fame).

I wish you could also.
*promote

>> ^enoch:
i wish i could hire ramsey just so he could yell at me and call me a worthless cunt.
having it televised would just be a bonus.
promote

In reply to this comment by enoch:
i wish i could hire ramsey just so he could yell at me and call me a worthless cunt.
having it televised would just be a bonus.
*promote

Thanks for the promote darlin! (you'd run out of PP though, but thought that counts eh )

i wish i could hire ramsey just so he could yell at me and call me a worthless cunt.
having it televised would just be a bonus.
*promote

>> ^Shepppard:

Wait, isn't this the older of the two brothers that make youtube videos to each other?
I think the other ones name is hank.

Written by: Jack Dreesen, John Ramsey & David Ward

Directed by: David Ward & John Ramsey
Produced by: Jack Dreesen, John Ramsey & David Ward

Starring: Byron Brown

It's an entry for Dorito's Crash the Super Bowl contest. The five finalists are pretty good, but I like this one better.

This is fucked completely, egotism exemplified. Ramsey is a normal guy trying to do something right here, I applaud and thank him for giving it a go. I quit eating meat about 7 months ago just to see if I could, and every day I find mounting evidence that the harvesting of animals is lunacy, considering where we're finding ourselves in the 21st century. Feeding our collective ego, instead of rationalising how best to keep our species thriving alongside the millions of others, is just pathetic.

Sharks are apex predators. Last time I checked, geese were not.>> ^legacy0100:

Mind you that I have never tried shark fin soup, but I must point out that Ramsey again puts himself in the shoes of an extremist. I've seen the documentaries of Ramsay and he is not this intense egomaniac he presents himself in front of Cameras. So I'm not sure how much he believes in the things he's preaches in this video.
But my main concern of this video is this ridiculous Hypocracy that's going on in this video. He has yet again taken this role as a very ethnocentric typical westerner judging and criticizing cultures that are different from his own for the sake of entertaining television. In the video he is arguing that harvesting fins from sharks are bad because:
1. Sharks are endangered species
2. The rest of the shark meat is being wasted.
3. The fins doesn't taste that good.
4. Sharks are killed inhumanely.

Then I've compared it with a delicacy from western tradition: Foie gra. http://www.aprl.org/sdcitybeat.php
1. Foie Gras Geese are Specially bred species that will not survive out in the wild. They are specialized to live ina mechanized farm to yield maximum production.
2. Goose meat is generally gamier and intensely flavored, and considered a 'delicacy'. Translation= People would rather eat chicken.
3. A lot of Easteners do not like the taste of Foie Gras, as they consider it to be too rich and fatty.
4. Geese are force-fed against their will, and killed as any farm animal would.
The only difference between these two delicacies is that western chefs are 'taught' to be comfortable with process of making Foie Gras. They are 'taught' to think it's okay to force-feed the Goose, that they're physiologically different from us, and that shoving metal tubes down their throat doesn't hurt them as much as we imagine it to be, so it's okay to do it.
So as long as we are used to the idea, it's perfectly normal. After all, western chefs make good money off of serving Foie Gras. But Shark fins? No western customer has ever came in demanding those. So it's pretty useless in his/her eyes.
The only argument the western Foie Gras' got going for is that the Goose species isn't endangered, since it's bred in a mass farm, in a cramped space, being force-fed periodically.
Yea, I find this video very hypocritical. Oh and then there's the problem of Eurpoean fisheries over farming the fish and devastating local ecology. Oh and then there's western demand for large fish, which has created this monster of a shrimp farming economy in Southeast Asia that's basically creating the most disgusting thing you can put in your mouth, yet westerners still buy them up.
Yea. So... Why is Ramsay, someone who's openly endorsing these products by constantly releasing recipes using Foie Gras and other unethical shit, hosting this video?

>> ^legacy0100:

Mind you that I have never tried shark fin soup, but I must point out that Ramsey again puts himself in the shoes of an extremist. I've seen the documentaries of Ramsay and he is not this intense egomaniac he presents himself in front of Cameras. So I'm not sure how much he believes in the things he's preaches in this video.
But my main concern of this video is this ridiculous Hypocracy that's going on in this video. He has yet again taken this role as a very ethnocentric typical westerner judging and criticizing cultures that are different from his own for the sake of entertaining television. In the video he is arguing that harvesting fins from sharks are bad because:
1. Sharks are endangered species
2. The rest of the shark meat is being wasted.
3. The fins doesn't taste that good.
4. Sharks are killed inhumanely.

Then I've compared it with a delicacy from western tradition: Foie gra. http://www.foodreference.com/html/artgoose.html
1. Foie Gras Geese are Specially bred species that will not survive out in the wild. They are specialized to live ina mechanized farm to yield maximum production.
2. Goose meat is generally gamier and intensely flavored, and considered a 'delicacy'. Translation= People would rather eat chicken.
3. A lot of Easteners do not like the taste of Foie Gras, as they consider it to be too rich and fatty.
4. Geese are force-fed against their will, and killed as any farm animal would.
The only difference between these two delicacies is that western chefs are 'taught' to be comfortable with process of making Foie Gras. They are 'taught' to think it's okay to force-feed the Goose, that they're physiologically different from us, and that shoving metal tubes down their throat doesn't hurt them as much as we imagine it to be, so it's okay to do it.
So as long as we are used to the idea, it's perfectly normal. After all, western chefs make good money off of serving Foie Gras. But Shark fins? No western customer has ever came in demanding those. So it's pretty useless in his/her eyes.
The only argument the western Foie Gras' got going for is that the Goose species isn't endangered, since it's bred in a mass farm, in a cramped space, being force-fed periodically.
Yea, I find this video very hypocritical. Oh and then there's the problem of Eurpoean fisheries over farming the fish and devastating local ecology. Oh and then there's western demand for large fish, which has created this monster of a shrimp farming economy in Southeast Asia that's basically creating the most disgusting thing you can put in your mouth, yet westerners still buy them up.
Yea. So... Why is Ramsay, someone who's openly endorsing these products by constantly releasing recipes using Foie Gras and other unethical shit, hosting this video?


So your argument is that it's ok for one ethnic group to wastefully kill an endangered species for an over-priced, tasteless status symbol because another ethnic group force feeds birds to make an over-priced status symbol?

Ah, the old "two wrongs make a right" argument! Ramsay's an ass. He's an ass that can cook, but he's still an ass. He can barely interact with other humans let alone animals (if my boss swore at me or called me "big boy", I'd quit so fast he wouldn't know what hit him. And I'd probably hit him). But that doesn't mean he's wrong about this or right about foie gras.

Mind you that I have never tried shark fin soup, but I must point out that Ramsey again puts himself in the shoes of an extremist. I've seen the documentaries of Ramsay and he is not this intense egomaniac he presents himself in front of Cameras. So I'm not sure how much he believes in the things he's preaches in this video.

But my main concern of this video is this ridiculous Hypocracy that's going on in this video. He has yet again taken this role as a very ethnocentric typical westerner judging and criticizing cultures that are different from his own for the sake of entertaining television. In the video he is arguing that harvesting fins from sharks are bad because:

1. Sharks are endangered species
2. The rest of the shark meat is being wasted.
3. The fins doesn't taste that good.
4. Sharks are killed inhumanely.


Then I've compared it with a delicacy from western tradition: Foie gra. http://www.aprl.org/sdcitybeat.php

1. Foie Gras Geese are Specially bred species that will not survive out in the wild. They are specialized to live ina mechanized farm to yield maximum production.
2. Goose meat is generally gamier and intensely flavored, and considered a 'delicacy'. Translation= People would rather eat chicken.
3. A lot of Easteners do not like the taste of Foie Gras, as they consider it to be too rich and fatty.
4. Geese are force-fed against their will, and killed as any farm animal would.

The only difference between these two delicacies is that western chefs are 'taught' to be comfortable with process of making Foie Gras. They are 'taught' to think it's okay to force-feed the Goose, that they're physiologically different from us, and that shoving metal tubes down their throat doesn't hurt them as much as we imagine it to be, so it's okay to do it.

So as long as we are used to the idea, it's perfectly normal. After all, western chefs make good money off of serving Foie Gras. But Shark fins? No western customer has ever came in demanding those. So it's pretty useless in his/her eyes.

The only argument the western Foie Gras' got going for is that the Goose species isn't endangered, since it's bred in a mass farm, in a cramped space, being force-fed periodically.

Yea, I find this video very hypocritical. Oh and then there's the problem of Eurpoean fisheries over farming the fish and devastating local ecology. Oh and then there's western demand for large prawns, which has created this monster of a shrimp farming economy in Southeast Asia that's basically creating the most disgusting thing you can put in your mouth, yet westerners still buy them up.

Yea. So... Why is Ramsay, someone who's openly endorsing these products by constantly releasing recipes using Foie Gras and other unethical shit, hosting this video?

>> ^AdrianBlack:

It was Dave Ramsey that said that. Good usage.>> ^SveNitoR:
>> ^skinnydaddy1:
So, the guy animates on a computer that uses 4 times the amount of materials that is in a mobile device. Just to tell us our love of gadgets is enslaving people who can only be freed by starting a war to kill the dictator and if we do that, we get antiwar animation pointing out how we are war mongers and now everyone hates the war mongers because they started a war and the only way not to make the rest of the world like them is to give up everything and live like a third world country while no other 1st world country does the same thing.
Right....
Define hypocrisy.

No, he claims that our extreme consumption patterns have negative effects, not that we should invade countries. We buy new, throw away, buy new, throw away... and so on. This is a quote from someone, whom I unfortunately forgot the name of: "We buy things we don't need, with money we don't have, to impress people we don't care about".



Thanks for the name! I read a review of one of his books but forgot to write down his name. Now I can look up his works myself.

It was Dave Ramsey that said that. Good usage.>> ^SveNitoR:

>> ^skinnydaddy1:
So, the guy animates on a computer that uses 4 times the amount of materials that is in a mobile device. Just to tell us our love of gadgets is enslaving people who can only be freed by starting a war to kill the dictator and if we do that, we get antiwar animation pointing out how we are war mongers and now everyone hates the war mongers because they started a war and the only way not to make the rest of the world like them is to give up everything and live like a third world country while no other 1st world country does the same thing.
Right....
Define hypocrisy.

No, he claims that our extreme consumption patterns have negative effects, not that we should invade countries. We buy new, throw away, buy new, throw away... and so on. This is a quote from someone, whom I unfortunately forgot the name of: "We buy things we don't need, with money we don't have, to impress people we don't care about".

Dupe: http://videosift.com/video/I-Think-Gordon-Ramsey-Is-Saying-The-Scallops-Won-t-Stick