Old man on Saturn: "When I was your age, we had to walk through storms 8 times the size of Earth to school, uphill both ways!"

When I was your age, we rocket jumped all the way to school uphill, both ways....

IN BOILING LAVA!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'parking garage, uphill, reverse, slip' to 'parking garage, uphill start, reverse, slip, rollback, manual, standard transmission' - edited by calvados

Hey, in the corgi's defense.... it is a higher jump going in than going out.

I say that as an infamously lazy person who feels the same way about going uphill.

That was 0-60 in way under 3 seconds...uphill

It seems to me that there are two main ways people approach moral reasoning.

For some people, it's about adherence to a list of inflexible and absolute rules. For some people those rules come from the church, for some those rules come from our government's justice system, and for some they come from some philosopher. Where they come from is immaterial, the basic moral reasoning is the same: right and wrong is solely determined by whether an action is in accordance with their comprehensive doctrine on human behavior.

For other people, myself included, the moral value of an action is ultimately about the an action's impact on human welfare generally. Most of the time, this means supporting a society with laws and rights, and courts. But that's because it improves human welfare to have society's expectations about human behavior be upfront, enforced, and equally applied. It's not because the law is the word of God, or the full and infallible description of morality. It's because doing so has beneficial consequences for human welfare.

This seems to me to be the fundamental difference between right-wing and left-wing thinking about issues. The right tends to approach moral reasoning through the first lens (deontology), while the left tends to approach moral reasoning through the latter (utilitarianism).

To tie this back to Osama bin Laden's assassination, there are people who say this was an immoral act because it violated international law, or because it violated his legal rights, or simply because killing is always wrong. There are also people who say this is an unquestionably moral act, because the Bible says an eye for an eye, or because they think all Muslims are infidels, or because they think anyone who declares war on our country deserves to die.

For me, I think international law is a force for good in the world, so are legal rights, and so is respect for human life. But I also think Osama bin Laden was a big source of suffering in the world, not just for Americans, but for everyone everywhere. I say killing him is better for human welfare on the whole than the long-run negative impact of our violating international law, and way better than letting him live out his life in freedom.

I think people who want to argue that killing him was somehow immoral have a bit of an uphill climb. They either need to make the case that Osama bin Laden was not guilty of crimes warranting death, and didn't pose any meaningful threat to humanity in the future; or they need to make the case that killing him in this way will somehow substantially change the conventions of international law, criminal jurisprudence, or our general understanding that killing people is wrong.

What isn't sufficient is some vague hand wringing about legal rights, or specious invocations of the Constitution.

one appeared to go uphill

the lifter on the last is excellent

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*isdupe>> ^BoneRemake:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Jet-propelled-cross-country-skilling
I gave ya a chance to change your ways. you duper. super duper duper.

Ya, It still has to end where it started for the water to fall straight down (AKA Gravity) onto the starting point. This model doesn't do that.

Yes, Lucky, I see what you are talking about with the pooling of the water and then it is propelled up the last ramp as if an air jet is turned on to push it uphill.

I bet the uphill race wasn't as exciting.

Aww, thank you...you spoil me! I hope they do well, it has been uphill reaching 10 votes lately. Not many people have your excellent tastes, methinks.



In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Why thank you, it is my distinct pleasure.

Your submissions are artful, deliciously wicked and most enjoyable.

They should do quite well this next week and weekend don't you think?

stop making fun of a guy in a lead jacket!
you try walking uphill in a 100lb jacket!

Ha, we posted the same response to Sagemind, only one minute apart:

http://videosift.com/video/Girls-Suck-at-Video-Games?loadcomm=1#comment-1023225

Welcome to the uphill battle.

In reply to this comment by Tagichatn:
>> ^Sagemind:

I can't agree with this.
Either you are a career person or you are a stay at home parent.
A dedication to the job at hand lets you succeed. No one can be expected to do both and be expected to excel at the same rate as the person who just chooses one. (male or female).
In Canada, yes, Men can get paternity, though most women would never give up their maternity to let them. (Only one parent can claim.) My wife took the maternity rights.
Yes, I was a stay at home dad (for a time) - and it was socially accepted - in fact I was commended!
NO! Woman are not expected to do the most - where do you get that from???
If the spouse isn't pulling their weight, it's a communication/relationship issue - talk to the spouse, don't blame "society" for something you let happen. (male or female)
Most of the (domestic)work falls to who ever is home with the kids, that's the way it is. Someone has to be there at some point. And when the other spouse gets home, they chip in, in equal portions. If they don't, then that says more about the relationship than society. By the way, while one spouse is at home working for the home, the other is out working to pay for it - It's not like they are away from the home avoiding responsibility).
This whole dad goes to work and brings home the bacon while mom stays home with the kids just DOESN'T exist in the real world for the average family. If you believe that, you're kidding yourself. No one can exist on a single income any more. If they can, then it's a privilege for the spouse who gets to spend the time at home with the kids and should thank the other spouse every day for their good fortune. (male or female) !!!
>> ^Tagichatn:
Men have children too, so why do women get picked on? Apparently it's "false logic" according to westy that women can have a full family and a full professional career but it's pretty easy for men. That's because even today, in 2010, women are generally expected to do most, if not all, of the care for the children. Men don't get paternity leave, being a stay at home dad isn't really socially accepted so it falls to the mother to do most of the work. It's not the 50's anymore so women at least have the option of maintaining a career but there's still that belief that the mom does the housework while the dad brings home the money.



It's great that in your relationship things were shared and done equally but how many times do I have to say this? Anecdotes don't matter! My mom was a stay at home mom so therefore 1950's housewives are clearly widespread! Anyway, that's not even my argument. I readily admit that 2 income households have come to dominate but my point is that the 1950's style of thinking still dominates. Even in 2 income households where both parents work and should therefore split the load of housework and childcare, women still are expected
to do the majority of the housework.

You said you've never seen women working for less. I can't speak for Canada but this is from the US Census: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm
From a related study based on the census, "Even accounting for factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure, reports the GAO, working women today earn an average of 80 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts."

Too bad not every women works with you, otherwise they would totally be equal and it wouldn't be a problem!

2 income homes are not equal either. Women do more work and men have more leisure time on average. Here's a survey done by the New York times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/15labor.html

You can post about your personal experiences all day but your experiences are not everyone elses. This is a societal problem, anecdotes don't tell the full story.