search results matching tag: time to kill

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.007 seconds

    Videos (18)     Sift Talk (2)     Blogs (2)     Comments (70)   

eoe (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Moved this to profile pages, better late than never.

I'll try to be brief....and fail miserably I expect.
I accept the fact that some theories I hold will be wrong, and cause failure. At least theories can be tested and discarded when proven false. Yes, some are so engrained it would take TNT to dislodge them, but they aren't unchangeable, beliefs are immutable.

No morality in that claim. Moral excuses might be 1) I minimize any suffering by buying mostly family farmed meats and 2) those lives only exist for human pleasure and substance. If no one ate cows and pigs, they would be extinct nuisance animals. (And chickens rare) If the animal has a nice, pain and stress free life, but in trade that life ends early, as long as the end is humane I'm not bothered. That's life it otherwise wouldn't enjoy at all.
Factory farms don't meet those requirements.
They're tasty is why I eat meat. It might be snide, but it's honest. Yes, I'm obstinate, I like meat, I'm not claiming it the most moral, ethical, ecological, or empathetic thing to do, but if done thoughtfully it's not the worst either.

My meaning with "it's not the worst t thing people do" was to reply to " I believe (assuming humans survive) humans will look upon this time of killing billions of animals for nothing but human pleasure with disgusting disgrace." with a few other examples of things worse that we will be judged for, not to distract or excuse. I'm not sure how that's a logical falicy. Tens of Billions of animals are killed horrifically for pure greed and not even used as food, that's a disgusting disgrace I could denounce.

I read the WHO study he was referencing and it said no such thing, I told him, showed him, he kept repeating the bullshit lies. I'm not receptive to people who blatantly misrepresent science. I don't rely on any industry produced studies for any decisions, that would be dumb. The study said certain highly processed and preserved red meats had some carcinogens, not any meat at any level is equivalent to two packs a day. My degree is general science, I can read a study.

Oh shit, nutritionfacts.org is Dr Gregor, the one who outright lies about scientific studies, and the one who made the false equivalency between tiny amounts of meat and constant chain smoking, he also loved to misuse "plant based" to mean vegan and claim the studies on plant based (not plant exclusive) diets proved vegan benefits when they really proved a mixed diets benefits. I've been deep down his rabbit hole, and found him incredibly unscientific and dishonest. I don't trust him one bit, sorry.

I've only known a hand full, including the one who introduced me to Dr Gregor, my aunt, uncle, and cousins, and a few here in hippy central where I live. Not one was honest, they acted like it was religion and took statements as gospel with no investigation and were forceful in their insistence that everyone agree.

I once ate fish and thought it was fine. Three years of marine biology cured me of that, so my theories are changed by facts. I promised myself to never learn too much about chicken, pork, or beef because I don't want to know what's in them unless it's broken glass. That's a conscious decision. There is no hell hot enough to scare me away from good bacon. That said, I do care that they have a good life before being harvested.

I'm willing to change behavior and thinking. I previously thought the fda was good at protecting us, I decided I couldn't trust that.

I make some decisions based on MY morality, some on self interest, some on group/global interest, etc. I'm not willing to make any based on someone else's morality, especially if they're pushy.

I have no clue who visits, but this is where I come, so it's where I speak up.

I always make the mistake of thinking people will be logical.

eoe said:

Woo boy, this is a doozy! The fact of the matter is a video comment section is not the place to have this conversation. There's too much to discuss, too many questions from one another that are best asked soon after they're conceived, etc. I frankly just don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Don't take this as acquiescence; if you'd like to have a Zoom chat some time, I'd be down.

In any event, I'll respond to what I find either the most important or at least most interesting:

Having theories is definitely the best way to go about most of the things you consider fact (for the moment), but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is that at some point you'll need to use some of those claims as fact/belief in order to take action. And it's just human nature to, if one believes in a claim for long enough, it becomes fact, despite all your suggestions of objectivity. It's easy to say you're a scientist through and through, but if you're really someone who doesn't believe anything and merely theorize things, I think you'd be a sad human being. But that's a claim that I leave up to the scientists.

> Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious.

You think that's a defensible moral claim? I find that disgraceful. If you truly think your own pleasure is worth sentient beings' lives then... I don't know what to say to you. That strikes me as callous and unempathetic, 2 traits you often assert as shameful. This is my point. You sound pretty obstinate to at least a reasonable claim. To respond with just "they're tasty". You don't sound reasonable to me.

> You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to.

Aw, come on @newtboy, I thought better of you than to give me a logical fallacy. The fact that you're resorting to logical fallacies wwould indicate to me that either you're confronting some cognitive dissonance, otherwise why would you stoop to such a weak statement?

> I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" ...

There is a lot of scientific research (not funded by Big ___) that is currently spouting this "bullshit". What happened to your receptive, scientific, theory-based lifestyle? It's true nutrition science is a fucking smog-filled night mare considering how much money is at stake, but I find it telling that a lot of the corporations are using the same ad men from Big Cigarette to stir up constant doubt.

Again, I find it peculiar that you are highly suspicious of big corporations... except when it comes to something that you want to be true.

Again, this is my point. Take a moment, take a few breaths, and look inside. Can you notice that you're acting in the exact same fashion as the people you purport to be obscenely stubborn?

Check out NutritionFacts if you want to see any of the science. Actual science. I would hope that it would give you at least somedoubt and curiosity.

That's a true scientist's homeostatic state: curiosity. Are you curious to investigate the dozens (hundreds?) of papers with a truly non-confirmation-biased mind? How much of a scientist are you?

> I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me.

This, for me, raises all sorts of red flags. That's quite a sweeping claim.

> Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

So, you're willing to make decisions based on self-interest and not morality? Well, duh. Everyone does that. It doesn't sound like you had a self-reflective moment. It sounds like you merely had a self-interested decision based on the risk to your own health.

And finally, all your talk about Bob -- of course he acts, consistently, like a twat. I just don't like feeding trolls. I don't think there's anyone on Videosift who's on the precipice and would be pushed over into the Alt-right Pit by Bob's ridiculous nonsense.

> Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies.

Ironically, I think science has disproved this. Facts don't change minds in situations like this. There are lots of articles on this. I didn't have the wherewithal to dig into their citations, but I leave that (non-confirmation-biased) adventure for you. [1]

---

I knew I wouldn't make this short, but I think it's shorter than it could have been.

Lastly, I'm with @BSR; I do appreciate your perseverance. Not everyone has as much as you seem to have! Whenever I see Bob... doing his thing, I can always be assured you'll take most of the words from my mouth. [2]

[1]
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

This Article Won’t Change Your Mind - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

Why People Ignore Facts | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

Why Facts Don't Always Change Minds | Hidden Brain : NPR
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213

[2] This comment has not been edited nor checked for spelling and grammatical errors. Haven't you got enough from me?

RNC 2020 & Kenosha: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

eoe says...

Fair enough.

The one point I'd contest is that if someone is to dig their heels in upon receiving (arguably smug) contradictory remarks, I don't think that necessary indicates that they'd vote for Trump no matter what.

When you attack someone's belief that they've had for years and probably decades (i.e., their identity), it is painful and difficult to change one's belief.

A question I like to ask people who say things like what you said is, "When's the last time you admitted being incorrect to a long-held belief?" We've all been confronted with this, but how many times were you able to change your identity?

For instance, "Are you an animal-lover?" and then, the obvious vegan query, "Then why do you eat animals?" There's a pretty strong moral case for not eating animals and I would argue that it's a case that time will show to be both true and moral. I believe (assuming humans survive) humans will look upon this time of killing billions of animals for nothing but human pleasure with disgusting disgrace.

You could say that I, looking upon meat eaters, feel the same way you feel about Bob, at least in some ways.

The question is, "How does it feel? How easily are you able to change your long-held beliefs when (from my perspective) you're on the wrong side of history?" Do you find yourself recoiling? If someone came at you with not only the question, but says it in a self-congratulatory, condescending way, would you respond to that well? I wouldn't. I'd tell you to fuck off.

Give someone the facts clearly and without prejudice, and you can at least plant an earworm for them to digest later.

If you are vegan, I gotta come up with another example.

newtboy said:

I don't respond to feel righteous or change his mind, I respond to give a clear, factual contradiction to the ridiculous propaganda he regurgitates to stop the spread of Trump Derangement Syndrome with as many references as possible to back my position....and because it's funny to me.
If no one does that, there are plenty of ignorant and lazy people who might just take his certitude as an indication he knows what he's talking about and never look for the facts.
If someone is biased enough that hearing verified facts contradict irrational misrepresentations makes them dig their heels in, they were voting for Trump anyway no matter what they claim.

Brave Men Save Pelican Tangled In Fishing Line

StukaFox says...

I love 84!

I had some friends into exotic cars and we'd take 84 over to the coast now and again, mostly because we had a shit-ton of money and a shit-ton of spare time to kill -- the Dot-Com fucking rocked!

There's a bend in the road just outside La Honda on the coastal side that's a 15mph hairpin with a tree at the apex. It's a lovely goddamn thing, especially when you forget it's there. So here we all come, lane-trading and exercising general assholery in cars that cost what a nice single-family home does.

Oh FUCK, the turn!!

My friend in the 911 does this beautiful trail-brake and swings through the curve. Elise follows suit, complete with smoking tires. Next up is Countach. He BARELY holds it together, but gets through without any real drama.

Now it's my turn.

Did I mention I was driving a '97 Camaro Z-28? Yeah, Camaros of that year are good at exactly one thing: driving very fast in very straight lines. Corners? Yeah, not so much. I realize I'm in trouble and I'm coming into the turn WAY too fast. I grab the shifter and get ready. My plan is that I'm going to slam it into first, let the rev limiter do its thing to save the engine, pull the e-brake and swing the tail, then punch it and swing the ass-end around and launch out of the curve with smoking Z-rated tires and all!

And HERE WE GO -- grab the shifter, yank it all the way down and...

That's when California emissions standards fucked me.

You see, when you buy a Camaro Z-28 in California, you don't actually get first gear. You get what's called a California First, which is actually SECOND gear, because if you were actually able to use FIRST gear, the goddamn car would belch enough emissions to make a farting Brontosaurus blush. And second gear ain't exactly gonna work for my little plan.

tl;dr is that I hit the no-lock brakes hard enough to get my speed down and was able to bring the ass around with the little e-brake trick. I wasn't out of the woods because I over-corrected on the way out and spun. The same God that I spite and don't believe in actually saved my ass and I didn't end up going off the road. Apparently, he loves fools and Z-28 Camaros.

I honestly had more fun in that car than the law allows: sometimes literally, like when I got clocked at 110 coming onto the straight at King City. Good times, man, good times.

newtboy said:

I love that stretch of coast.
As a teen I used to party at hidden beach a few miles North. The only access was a sketchy 6" wide path on the cliffside, so we knew cops wouldn't bother us there.
Should've taken 84 home, less time driving in the stink and you could've gotten great BBQ in La Honda. ;-)

Alpha Delta Pi Texas sorority's recruitment video

newtboy says...

Nice....
But I think it's really...

Boom boom
I wanna go A.D. Pi
Boom boom
And baby that ain't a lie
Boom boom
I wanna go A.D. Pi, don't you?

Boom boom
I wanna wear white and blue
Boom boom
Everywhere, got time to kill
Boom boom
I wanna go A.D. Pi, don't you?

Boom boom
I wanna go A.D. Pi
Boom boom
That's Alpha Delta Pi
Boom boom
I wanna go A. D. Pi, don't you?

Odd they say they want to wear white and blue, but they are wearing white and green. Cults make you do strange things.

visionep said:

This is what is sounds like to me:

Boom Boom
I want to go 85
Boom Boom
And baby that ain't a lie
Boom Boom
I want to go 85
On Jeff!
Boom Boom
I want to wear white and blue
Boom Boom
And where I have time to kill
Boom Boom
I want to go 85
On Jeff!
Boom Boom
I want to go 85
Boom Boom
That's how I'm gonna go Delta Pi
Boom Boom
I want to go 85
On Jeff!

Alpha Delta Pi Texas sorority's recruitment video

visionep says...

This is what is sounds like to me:

Boom Boom
I want to go 85
Boom Boom
And baby that ain't a lie
Boom Boom
I want to go 85
On Jeff!
Boom Boom
I want to wear white and blue
Boom Boom
And where I have time to kill
Boom Boom
I want to go 85
On Jeff!
Boom Boom
I want to go 85
Boom Boom
That's how I'm gonna go Delta Pi
Boom Boom
I want to go 85
On Jeff!

BSR said:

Wish I knew what they were saying. But then again I've always had a problem hearing women.

Rambo-Last Blood

wraith says...

Us men seem to be way more insecure than I previously imagined.

I get the Action Movies where a young, fit, trained specialist takes out an army of bad guys (against all odds) because he is the hero..

Young men like to watch this, because they have to much Testosterone.

I partly get the Action Movies where a middle aged man of a srtictly civilian persuasion is "pushed too far"(tm), normally by bad guys abducting (or just threatening) his family, and wipes out the bady guys (usually career criminals with lots of training in killing people) by the dozen.

Middle aged men seem to need this to get through the day.

What I really don't get is this slew of movies over the last years, where a retired, old and tired looking man, (usually after his daughter gets kidnapped) decides to come out of retirement one last time (or multiple times) to kill hordes of young, highly trained bad guys.

I get it why some men like to watch this, Testosterone makes you stupid like that, no matter if it comes in syringes, but the rest?

Rare White Mother and Baby Giraffes

Polar Bear petting Dog

Unarmed Man Laying On Ground With Hands in Air Shot

newtboy says...

I accept your appology. ;-)

I understand. I was not condoning it, I was decrying a situation where that is a reasonable response in self defense. I do not condone, nor do I wish for cops being shot/killed any more than I condone or wish for them to kill others...which is not at all, or barring that, only when absolutely necessary to save lives.

Not having sympathy for a group's pain is not the same thing as advocating more pain infliction. I understand the misunderstanding, I'm often unclear. I am not sympathetic for the losses of a group that causes 30 times the killings they receive....but I want them to kill fewer, not for more of them to be killed.

Yes, and no. You could say I 'dehumanize' them, but really I humanize them. Dehumanizing them would be elevating their position IMO...I have a terrible estimation of humanity, so dehumanizing someone is being nice. ;-)

No, I'm a LOT twisted. ;-)

Again, no I don't think more dead cops fixes anything....but I do see it as a likely outcome of this behavior....and understandable. If you honestly believe any member of a particular group is likely to attack and kill you without provocation, with recent evidence provided daily to reinforce that belief, any reasonable person would act in self defense.

As it turns out, according to his superior, you are correct....he intended to kill the autistic man. That makes the triple handcuffing even more curious, to put it mildly. They now admit he was NEVER a suspect, but have not offered any reasoning behind handcuffing him or not offering any medical attention for an unreasonable time.

Just so I'm clear, had you used '....' instead of "....." to paraphrase what you thought I was saying, I would not have taken offence at the misunderstanding. I only got upset because using quotation marks indicated I said exactly what you mistakenly thought I meant.

Jinx said:

Oh, my apologies.

Sorry. Its just... heh... when you wrote "...and actually appropriate IMO" about the killing of cops I somehow thought you were sort of condoning killing cops. Or like, when you said "I have zero sympathy for recently murdered cops" I thought you were dehumanising them, like, just a lil bit. So, you know, I suppose I sort of jumped to this conclusion that you're a bit twisted.

Do you honestly think that more dead cops fixes this? It's kind of a cliche, but ever heard of the "cycle of violence"? You know, "hate begets hate" kind of thing?

In regards to this video...honestly I've no idea. I don't believe that he intended to shoot him or that it was premeditated...but then the level of incompetence required to pull this off without malice is equally unbelievable. I can only speculate that they cuffed him, even after it should have been easily apparent to them they had really badly fucked up, to treat him consistently so that they could later claim they'd acted in self defence.

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided - Trailer

RedSky says...

Liked it but I dunno if I'd go that far. The quick time event kills really annoyed me, the bosses were a bit of a missed opportunity (although I hear they fixed them, but I'd already finished it) and the ending (whole last chapter) was a bit so-so. It felt like they were pressured at the end to finish. Hopefully with the foundation already done they will have the time and creative license to create a more refined sequel.

AeroMechanical said:

It's a close call between a few, but even with its warts, all and all Human Revolution might be my favorite mass market video game of the last ten years. More of the same would be fine by me.

Our Women Should Not Be Allowed to Drive Lest They Get Raped

gorillaman says...

So stop treating animals like human beings. Millions upon millions of muslims think like this and every time you kill one you raise the average intelligence and moral character of the human race.

Skydiver Almost Struck By Meteorite

sanderbos says...

You would think Superman would have learned not to carelessly hit baseballs in random directions after that first incident (sure, he saved Sandra Bullock that time, still killed a dude first).

Bernie Sanders tears into Walmart for corporate welfare

enoch says...

@chingalera
/chuckles
oh i know man.

my comment was with tongue firmly planted in cheek but my basic point remains the same.

some people have to make concessions in order to survive in this fucked up system.
maybe they have children.
maybe they are married with an asston of debt hanging over their heads.

i am an anarchist.
so i have arranged my life in a way where my participation in this zombie system is shaved to a bare minimum but i also have to recognize that some people do not have that luxury.since i am not living their lives i refuse to judge them.

just look at the comments here.
your assertion of an imagined polemic plays out in this thread,quite conveniently making your point.

we have @bobknight33 posting the heritage foundations position almost verbatim (thanks for responding bob,i like when you participate.sincerely),in regards to capitalism.

then we have @Sagemind posting a more "left" leaning comment.

and then we have the always ironic @lantern53 bemoaning the ills of government.yet his salary is provided by taxpayers,and hence the very government he is deriding.he is such a closet socialist.(loooove you lantern../hugs).

yet all these positions have validity.

the governments role should be criticized and examined.
corporations should be exposed for their undue influence.

this is not a simple issue and it is where i think you and i totally agree.
i too get frustrated when people talk about this subject in a binary way.
it is NOT just a black/white,good/evil,right/left matter.

and when people engage in this form of perception they also tend to demonize the "other" side.
so if someone posits an opinion that happens to be contrarian to ones views,they are automatically dismissed as "wrong" and anything they have to say is discarded as being stupid,ill-thought or just plain downright wrong.

this is the fundamental flaw in this binary thinking.
and it is not by accident but rather by design.

divide and conquer.

in the developed western world we have 30 choices for toilet paper but when it comes to things that TRULY matter?
we get two.

so the true elite and powerful of this country pick their prized horse and offer up to us,the american public,a choice of TWO rich fuckers.
would you like democrat?
or republican?

doesnt really matter who you choose because either one is going to serve their masters.
who of course are wall street and corporate america.
not you or i.

we are fed a constant stream of populist bullshit that gives the appearance of solidarity and nationalism but in reality serves only the corporate masters in fleecing the american people of more and more of their own hard earned:money,rights,liberties and ultimately our independence.

the problems with un-fettered capitalism are well known and well understood.
just as the problems with socialism are well known.

it is the SYSTEM that needs to be challenged and questioned,examined and ultimately discarded if we find it lacking.

and i find it lacking.
morally,socially and financially.

it is time we kill the beast.
because it is feeding on itself and putting us ALL at risk.

bah..you fucker.got me ranting.

let me conclude with this:
i find all structures of power and authority to be illegitimate until proven otherwise.
i find the system of plutocracy currently in place to be illegitimate.
it serves only the upper eschelon and commodifies the poor.
the poor have become fodder for the military industrial complex as well as the private prison system.
the working poor have become cogs in a machine that is slowly crushing them under the weight of the hubris of those who feel entitled to their fortunes and that somehow they are more deserving then their fellow man.

the beast is sick with its own arrogance and needs to be put down.
the only recourse us normal folk have is to stop feeding the beast.

if only 5% stopped going to work and took to the streets you will see a very frightened beast begging us all to the negotiating table.

thats my 2 cents anyways.

Queen Humiliates Obama During Toast

chingalera says...

@JustSaying-True, true, but from from time to time cease-and-desist actions in varying degrees of magnitude do provide a modicum of balance and the temporary cessation of extreme bullshit. Now that the cunts have stuff like chemical and biological weapons, earth-rendering ordinance conventional and otherwise, and massive compounds to house detractors uhhhh....Maybe it's time to kill us some sibling-fuckers.

God shave the queen, and display her from the highest point in the square, next to her African buddy there....

George W. On PRISM

chingalera says...

I do have some anger issues-The crux of that issue perhaps possibly, my perception that I might be living in an era of mass-hypnotism of the planet's inhabitants through technologies envisioned originally to afford power now hi-jacked (and historically so) by charlatans posing as world leaders?

Another obvious turd lodged in my craw? How about a social-evolutionary path akin to Bradbury's "Fahrenheit" or Orwell's "84" turning an entire continent of what formerly consisted of self-determined, practical, and classically educated hard-working sorts into a cast of extras from "Idiocracy?"

Yeah, it pisses me off that so many people are distracted by what they are being told about some illusory process in which the common citizen might take part to imagine some bright future for mankind falling somewhere between the golden rule and the code of Hammurabi. The planet is being hi-jacked by a new breed of criminals frighteningly similar to the most egregious of old-For everything there is a season my friend, Solomon's wisdom in Ecclesiastes 3 it just as pertinent today as it will be for humans for the next 10,000 years-"a time to kill and heal, a time to break down, and a time to build up."

I'd like to imagine the new-construction-upon-the-ashes to include projects both organic and nano-technological in nature with the transformation of our specie's bodies, minds, souls and spirits as a prime objective.

You are living in these wonderful and frightening times, consider this incarnation your most favorable having been born when, where, how, why, and what you are-You are an amazing collection of cellular consciousness manifest in the wonder of flesh.
It's pretty fucking cool actually, and these are the ideas upon which I try to meditate upon every waking hour.

Oh yeah, and I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore, Hail Satan, Hail Eris, Jesus Saves.


(BTW, to answer your inquiry as to the "knowledge" that administrations keep in the dirty-little-secrets folder? Do you really have to ask about need-to-know information that would end the lives of yourself and everyone you know, because that's what the United States can do for you alla-Hoover, alla-Bush, alla-New World Order Über Alles.
What you think you know you don't, and you can't form an opinion or come to a conclusion on a subject for which you have incomplete data with which to arrive at those opinions or conclusions. Simple deductive reasoning or even a pragmatic model of the scientific method should make this screamingly clear to anyone who distrusts the anemically hostile Babylonian system .

A10anis said:

I could indulge you and respond but, to be frank, there is no point. I would simply state the obvious; you are a seriously angry person. Seek some anger management before you have a breakdown.



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