This song is all kinds of awesome. But if this song is released today, would people accuse it of cultural appropriations and/or "inauthenticity"?

Man the 70s, those are the good times indeed!

You're a cold, dead and unfeeling person if you don't want to spring up from the couch and do some air kicks & punches whenever this song come on. And thought of Bruce Lee. I sure did!

“Humans — who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals — have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and 'animals' is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them — without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us.”- Carl Sagan/Dr. Ann Druyan

Yes, it's called Psychopathy, or Anti-Social Personality Disorder.

It doesn't mean you go around killing people (though it certainly lowers the bar!)

Here's a good article about a scientist studying the characteristics of psychopathic brains who accidentally found out that he was a psychopath. He'd never realized it, because everything in life had gone his way, but once he saw what he was, he reflected and found things he'd done without any guilt that ordinary people might have dwelt on (or not done in the first place).

As I understand it, Psychopathy (or ASPD) means that there's no empathy for other people. They can't read emotions like the rest of us can, and so they see other people almost like unfeeling robots. In extreme cases, the psychopath believes they are the only real person in a world of automatons and they think no more of other people than you or I would think of plant life. There's a range, this isn't an absolute on or off switch. About 10% of the male population and 1% of the female population has it to some degree (much higher in politics and executive offices).

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/?no-ist

As I said repeatedly, I agree with you that zoos are unnatural.

You start with unnatural, you end with unnatural.

You start with unnatural, you end up making unnatural choices.

This is a hard hard world, and we as humans are killing it more and more every day.

Zoos have morphed from being horrible cages, confining animals to be gawked at by unfeeling humans. Now zoos, the good ones, do their damnedest to create as natural an environment as possible.

Which still isn't very natural.

You say that this was an "unconscionable" choice, the killing of poor Marius (by the way, I mourn him, too.)

Do you think they should have taken the $600K from the wealthy person wanting to save his life? Even though it would have sentenced poor Marius to isolation and depression for the rest of his "natural" life? To me, that would be unconscionable. Blood money, made off the suffering of a single animal.

I think the real problem here is the very existence of zoos. There would be no Marius if there were no zoos.

I keep thinking about my dad's second wife. She was a piece of cake -- not the sharpest knife in the drawer, not capable of reasoned, step by step thinking. She had a great native -- almost feral -- intelligence though, it just wasn't that "logical."

One day, my uber-logical engineer father said something that she didn't like. I didn't like it either. So Oleta said, in a thick Okie drawl, "Just because something is right, doesn't mean it is right."

I almost started laughing at the absurdity of her statement, until I realized what she was really saying. So I asked her, "Do you mean just because something is logical, that doesn't mean it is right?" Yep. That was what she meant.

I think this is one of those situations. There are logical step by step reasons that led to poor Marius being literally fed to the lions. And then there is the emotional truth of a healthy and happy young giraffe being treated like he wasn't an individual with a right to a natural life.

Just because it was right, doesn't mean it was right.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I don't think he's lying (this time).
He really is this much of a unfeeling, entitled Prick.


There's a wonderful aroma of coffee to be enjoyed upon your rise from slumber my friend....You can't BE president in the fantasy world of American government UNLESS you are an unfeeling, entitled Prick!?!

I don't think he's lying (this time).
He really is this much of a unfeeling, entitled Prick.

>> ^Sagemind:

Emotions, hate and everything negative create a killer - thereby emotion, forgiveness and love shall set him free.
...And by free, I mean free to remorse and begin a process of feeling what it is to be human again.
Since negative forces create a killer, condemnation and negativity will never penetrate to hard shell he has around him. The unexpected realization that someone is reaching out, someone you expect only condemnation from can be the chisels to start the first crack of remorse and acceptance that maybe someone out there cares.


Don't get me wrong, I believe that what the man did was wonderful and truly human in a way that the bitterness and hate displayed by the other people miss. However, I feel like it might be jumping the gun interpreting the emotion displayed by this scum as you (and others) have. I'm not saying that there couldn't be healing there, but I also feel like those tears may be more of the selfish and insane attitude that made him a serial killer to begin with.

I'm not sure who said it first, but Carrie Fischer had a great line in her one-woman show: bitterness is like you drinking poison and expecting the other person to die. I agree wholeheartedly that what this man did was far more productive to himself and others than the vitriol spilled by those who couldn't show compassion towards this waste. Still, I understand them and wouldn't trust this man to be anything other than what he clearly is: cold, unfeeling, and already dead.

Not to get gruesome, but this man faced FAR more compelling moments which should have evoked empathy. He faced his victims and strangled them to death (if I googled the right guy, over 90 time) Think about that. He had people in his control who he tortured. They were awake and likely pleading for their lives. Probably women. Imagine their eyes filled with tears as he did whatever horrors he did to them.

To think that a moment of forgiveness from one of his victim's families makes him in any way human is just naive. I am far more likely to believe that his tears were motivated by the same hyper-narcissism that he felt killing his victims. We will never know exactly what was going through his head as he cried in this clip, but I doubt it has anything to do with healing or becoming human. It more than likely has to do with another selfish, "I'm great and this guy gets me" insanity.

All this said, I vacillate on the death penalty. I remember the quote Gandalf says about the subject and find it one of the most compelling anti-death penalty statements: Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

This guy is about as much of a clear choice of someone I would have no problem putting to death. This isn't OJ for which you could argue that there is tainted evidence... this guy not only admits his horrible guilt, but is verifiable in a much more concrete way. Yet, I can't help but to think that we could learn from him and hopefully good can come of that, either to help prevent the creation of other monsters like him, or at least clues on how to catch them easier.

In the end though I empathize with both sides of those who spoke. I agree that the gentleman who forgave the killer will lead a relatively happier life, in as much as he can having lived through what he did, but I completely understand wanting this man to suffer after what he did to his victims. He is not human, he will never be, and I don't believe his tears are noteworthy as an example of his humanity, but rather curious as a psychopath who smiles or whistles as he inflicts horrors on others.

@Sagemind You have a good point, even though I'm not questioning whether employers want to underpay, but whether the minimum wage law is the actual mechanism that's stopping employers from underpaying.

If someone is not skilled, isn't it possible for them to acquire skills while they are employed earning less, so that their employment is not a burden on the business? Isn't making it illegal to hire them hindering them from eventually acquiring the skills they need to become productive and competitive? If so, wouldn't that be most harmful towards those who most need employment, like the poor?

I don't think you're unfeeling, actually, the stated goal of the minimum wage is very honorable. What should be argued is whether it does any good towards that stated goal. Did you know that during the Apartheid, minimum wage laws were imposed as a way of protecting employed white people from losing their jobs to black people who were willing to work for lower wages?

Btw, it's refreshing to see someone willing to argue instead of being closed-minded and quick to dismiss and downvote. This community needs more people like you. Thanks

It's obvious that not all employers seek to exploit - but there are numerous positions that pay the minimum only because they are forced to. They would pay even less if they could - and that's exploitation. To pretend some employers won't take advantage of paying employees less is laughable.

As far as trimming employees. An employer is not going to trim the staff it needs to exist. If an employer can still cover the shifts and turn a profit with one or two less employees, then those employees were never needed to begin with. If they notice that they are constantly a body short, the employer will adjust to accommodate and hire someone back on to fill the void as needed.

If someone is not "skilled-in-their-craft," it's likely they won't last at their job anyway. That's just the way of things. The skilled move forward. The unskilled, retrain and find a new craft.

I'm not unfeeling. I care for the next guy just as much as anyone and I know it sounds cold but... The fact remains, jobs don't exist so that everyone remains employed. Jobs exist so that the employer can ruin his business. Don't pretend it isn't. A business minded person will find a way to make their business turn a profit. That is the sole purpose of a business. A viable income source for first the employer and to keep the business running. The employees are simply the cost of doing business.

>> ^renatojj:

@Sagemind if most employees would be exploited and underpaid without minimum wage, why is it that most employees, today, are earning more instead of exactly the minimum wage? I mean, isn't that allegedly what's keeping most employers from exploiting their workers?
When you mentioned a business should "trim where needed", that trimming might include workers who are less competent or skilled in their craft, and those workers would have to be fired and earn nothing at all because of minimum wage. Doesn't that bother you?

I would like to take that belt and wrap it around that fathers freaken balls! He shouldn't be allowed to have any more childern ever! Because hes not a human being. Hes a heartless unfeeling JACKASS! that should be locked up for life!

Sadly, it doesn't make me feel better that you feel like shit about it. It's a shame that you were now affected negatively twice by this whole incident. I mean that.

As for the girl scenario, it would be unfortunate that it had happened, but I cannot change my stance on something for a hypothetical situation, joke or not. I have (had) friends who have committed suicide, and it is incredibly tough to rationalize or justify their decisions, so I don't, as it is too late anyway; but there have been some failed attempts by friends too, that I am proud to say I helped in the "snap out of it" process. Some people want to live more than others I guess, and I think that decision is predetermined.

And lets face it, BoneR was going to be banned sooner or later for something, so I for one blame him, not you. It's just a shame when these things get out of hand. Either way, to each their own and thanks for a healthy exchange of Ideals. I dont care what all the other sifters say, you area a gentleman and a scholar. Your character shines though as well, mister Boise_lib.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^sme4r:
I politely disagree. I believe that with the amount of humans on the planet, if someone tells you to "jump off a bridge" and you do it, then it is merely natural selection at its finest. We cannot outgrow our primitive ways entirely, and if I have to change my online rhetoric because someone might have an issue with it, then I am now the one affected.
Depression is a real problem, but a vague term, and I refuse to censor myself because someone might take issue with it. You are correct, sir, in noting that you don't know who is on the other end of an online convo, but am I to assume that every person cant take a joke?
Bottom line: Do you really think BoneR wanted you to commit suicide? I don't.
Again, I am just stating my opinion. Love you guys and I respect you all. (to a certain degree )

I appreciate your polite disagreement.
You refuse to censor yourself--okay. I brought up a potential issue in order that people might think twice--I even said please. I did not advocate a new auto-ban rule. You say, "...if I have to change my online rhetoric because someone might have an issue with it, then I am now the one affected." I'm not advocating anyone force you to change your online rhetoric, but we all change our views and rhetoric all the time--it's called maturing.
Imagine this scenario:
A 13 year old girl from your neighborhood--you know her and her parents--jumps off a bridge to her death. Upon investigation it's found that the last thing she was doing was reading something online. The very last thing she read--her last action on earth--was a comment from you (not to her) saying, "Go jump off a bridge." Would you then say, "Well it's natural selection, she didn't deserve to live"? Or, would you feel bad that reading your comment was enough to cause a young person, with so much potential life to live, to jump? I refuse to believe that you would be so unfeeling as to say, "She should have been able to take a joke."
The whole premise of my posting was that someone, somewhere, might read what you write and it might trigger a suicide. That one person might even know that you were joking--that doesn't matter if Suicidal Ideation is involved. No, you shouldn't have to assume that every person can't take a joke--but you should, at least, know that not every person can.
My actions (over-re-actions) started a chain of events which caused BoneRemake to be suspended. If it makes you feel better I feel like shit over the whole incident. I'm sorry your friend got suspended for 2 weeks, but please remember--I don't have the power to suspend, or ban, anyone. I'm just a Standard Member; a noob. Also, please remember that you have only seen the parts of the conversations which are open to all. Neither you, nor I, have seen everything that happened.
I appreciate your saying openly what you believe instead of trying to bait me: as has happened. An open discussion may not change your mind--but it has shown me the depth of your character.
Thank You.

>> ^sme4r:

I politely disagree. I believe that with the amount of humans on the planet, if someone tells you to "jump off a bridge" and you do it, then it is merely natural selection at its finest. We cannot outgrow our primitive ways entirely, and if I have to change my online rhetoric because someone might have an issue with it, then I am now the one affected.
Depression is a real problem, but a vague term, and I refuse to censor myself because someone might take issue with it. You are correct, sir, in noting that you don't know who is on the other end of an online convo, but am I to assume that every person cant take a joke?
Bottom line: Do you really think BoneR wanted you to commit suicide? I don't.
Again, I am just stating my opinion. Love you guys and I respect you all. (to a certain degree )


I appreciate your polite disagreement.

You refuse to censor yourself--okay. I brought up a potential issue in order that people might think twice--I even said please. I did not advocate a new auto-ban rule. You say, "...if I have to change my online rhetoric because someone might have an issue with it, then I am now the one affected." I'm not advocating anyone force you to change your online rhetoric, but we all change our views and rhetoric all the time--it's called maturing.

Imagine this scenario:

A 13 year old girl from your neighborhood--you know her and her parents--jumps off a bridge to her death. Upon investigation it's found that the last thing she was doing was reading something online. The very last thing she read--her last action on earth--was a comment from you (not to her) saying, "Go jump off a bridge." Would you then say, "Well it's natural selection, she didn't deserve to live"? Or, would you feel bad that reading your comment was enough to cause a young person, with so much potential life to live, to jump? I refuse to believe that you would be so unfeeling as to say, "She should have been able to take a joke."

The whole premise of my posting was that someone, somewhere, might read what you write and it might trigger a suicide. That one person might even know that you were joking--that doesn't matter if Suicidal Ideation is involved. No, you shouldn't have to assume that every person can't take a joke--but you should, at least, know that not every person can.

My actions (over-re-actions) started a chain of events which caused BoneRemake to be suspended. If it makes you feel better I feel like shit over the whole incident. I'm sorry your friend got suspended for 2 weeks, but please remember--I don't have the power to suspend, or ban, anyone. I'm just a Standard Member; a noob. Also, please remember that you have only seen the parts of the conversations which are open to all. Neither you, nor I, have seen everything that happened.

I appreciate your saying openly what you believe instead of trying to bait me: as has happened. An open discussion may not change your mind--but it has shown me the depth of your character.

Thank You.

Cheers, now I'm left feeling my once inimitable, wonderful boyfriend is a bit of an unfeeling prick...

True. Atheists can imagine they are immune from self-deception. But so can everybody. However the lack of a belief in any god isn't a deception, it's a lack reception. You have to be decepted into believing something, or decepted into believing the opposite, let's say, but how can you be decepted into not having any reason to believe?>> ^quantumushroom:
The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it? --Jeremiah 17:9
This is a damned good line whether you're a Christian or not. There's nothing wrong with promoting reason and celebrating reason---brilliant and reasonable religious people abound.
Unless you are an unfeeling siftbot, your capacity for self-deception is bottomless.
Too often, atheists imagine they are immune from this self-deception. That's all.
>> ^gwiz665:
When the site's general bias is "pro reason" then the "anti reason" will naturally have a problem with it. Reason generally comes with greater intelligence, thus it could be deduced that because the users of videosift are very pro reason, they are smarter than the average bear. I have no problem with that - in fact, I think that's a good thing.
We don't have an anti christian bias per se, but we have an anti "unreason" bias. It's a good thing.
I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can seriously, seriously, believe in something like god, which is demonstrably false. How can your brain justify it?

The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it? --Jeremiah 17:9

This is a damned good line whether you're a Christian or not. There's nothing wrong with promoting reason and celebrating reason---brilliant and reasonable religious people abound.

Unless you are an unfeeling siftbot, your capacity for self-deception is bottomless.

Too often, atheists imagine they are immune from this self-deception. That's all.


>> ^gwiz665:

When the site's general bias is "pro reason" then the "anti reason" will naturally have a problem with it. Reason generally comes with greater intelligence, thus it could be deduced that because the users of videosift are very pro reason, they are smarter than the average bear. I have no problem with that - in fact, I think that's a good thing.
We don't have an anti christian bias per se, but we have an anti "unreason" bias. It's a good thing.

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can seriously, seriously, believe in something like god, which is demonstrably false. How can your brain justify it?