I didn't even notice they were butchering the camel until I read the comments. And then I watched it again and I was horrified.

But then I thought about why I was horrified and it really has more to do with the fact that we simply don't see where our meat comes from anymore in society. If I want some turkey for Christmas dinner, I can just head to the grocery store and buy one that's ready to cook (or already cooked). I don't have to go out in the backyard and chop one's head off, bleed it, pluck it, and pull its innards out with my bare hands.

So really, the horror comes from just not seeing it happen everyday (even though I'm guessing millions of animals are butchered for food worldwide every day).

The comments in YouTube suggest this camel was being killed in a Halal fashion (which would require the butchering to be done the way we see in the video--a swift cut to the carotid artery followed by a bleeding out). Turkeys are killed in the same way, I believe (though hung upside down first before having their throat slit).

So to the people who are against this video (or are actually downvoting it) I say: humans are omnivores. It's scientific fact. Most humans eat animals and that usually means killing them first. This video shouldn't be shocking and probably the reason it is to you is that 1) you never thought to eat a camel since you grew up in a country where that wasn't common and/or 2) you've forgotten that animals actually have to be butchered before showing up on your local grocery store shelf and/or 3) you've chosen to be vegetarian (good on you) but forgotten that a large number of other people have chosen to embrace their omnivorism.

(I know omnivorism isn't an actual dictionary word but if vegetarianism can be a word, why not?)

I base it solely on the sifts definition of 'snuff' (the way i read it), and my experience of the history of this site and how snuff has been judged in the past. We have had this debate so many times that i think the dag/lucky should just make the call as this is always somewhat subjective. I'm fine with whatever they think.

Also if @lucky760 finds the content acceptable (not snuff) he can remove my downvote for it was cast due to rule violation the way i see it.

Cuba is one of my favourite places to travel to. If you ever get the chance to (and the US will get it very soon,) I recommend going. Go off the resorts, talk and meet with everyone.

As for computers, technology and the ilk, there is a black market for it. A lot of tourists have deals set up where they bring in tablets, phones, clothing for people and get paid well for it.

I was talking to one of the guides from Moron (yes, actually named that.) They said aside from drugs, the second highest black market industry is high fashion. They essentially see what the tourists are wearing, and then they try and copy, hand make, bargain for the same clothes. Tech works the same way, they see the cameras, phones, tablets, and either cobble together something from parts they have around, or they make a deal.

It's a really rad place, food, dancing, people, if you get a chance to go, go. You will love it. =)

The point is someone thought they would let you know that there was a way to see how the trick was done which you seemed to be interested in. Being 'taught' the trick is as good as being shown how it was done. You then had to reply with some douchey comment to someone who was just letting you know there was a way to get what you asked for. Not very cool on your part. At least that's how it reads to me.

I think to be more fair to Germany, the way I see it isn't that German's are complaining about their own benefits being poor by comparison. I don't even see it as German's complaining that Greece's was too rich by comparison. Your point of Greek spending it's money as it wishes stands.

I think the very legitimate side for Germany is that if Greece wanted to borrow German money for those benefits that Germany would like to see that money someday paid back. More over, if Greece is now too poor to pay that money back and is asking for even more loans to scrape by, Germany isn't exactly an ogre in demanding some spending/taxation changes from Greece first so there is some hope at least the new loans will be paid back.

Greece's current finance minister doesn't even seem to deny much of this. Rather in accepting it, he points out that in spite of these debt obligations from the past, if Greece is forced to abide by them, the resulting collapse of Greece will similarly do nothing to help pay back the debts that are outstanding. Basically that Germany and other creditors are going to take the loss regardless, and maybe it's in everyone's best interests to find a road where Greece doesn't become a failed state.

I dunno, I'm still not convinced. We aren't seeing what happened before though, and I'm assuming the inside car is the one doing the passing, which may not be the case. If you're passing someone on the inside and you're two wide in a corner, it certainly is your responsibility to leave room for the car you are passing. Though you could be right, it doesn't look to me as though the outside car turned into the inside car, and the driver certainly never would have done that intentionally because that would inevitably end in them both crashing (assuming this isn't a Prost/Senna sort of thing). Since they're both sweeping towards the outside, the way I see it, the inside car is the one that hit the car on the outside.

Granted, even in this scenario, the driver on the outside could and should have conceded the corner, but he isn't obliged to do so, and I certainly wouldn't have expected it on the final corner of the final lap of the race.

It will be interesting to see what the stewards say. Or said, I suppose they probably already said whatever and I can just google it.

edit: The Jalopnik link text seems to agree with my assessment, that it was the inside driver's fault if anybody is to be at fault.

I am not 'calling' it anything. By legal definition some of his crimes are considered violent crimes and he would have been charged/will be charged as such when he appears before a court.

Robbing a store with a finger in your pocket is the same as robbing it with a gun or piece of metal per the eyes of the law.

Setting fire to an OCCUPIED structure is a violent crime. Committing Arson even on an empty structure can be considered a violent crime depending on who could be hurt if the fire spreads or explosions occur from the contents of the building.

Burglary (also called breaking and entering and sometimes housebreaking) is a crime, the essence of which is illegal entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. Trespassing is typically entering a section of land that has been marked.

Motor vehicle theft (sometimes referred to as grand theft auto by the media and police departments in the US) is the criminal act of stealing or attempting to steal a car. This can happen in many ways, but they all fall under this description.

As far as the gun theft, still falls under the definition of burglary. He stole a weapon and tussled with the store employees to escape. I personally would call it a violent crime, but I don't know for sure if it legally is considered one or if it would be relegated more to shoplifting.

Yeah, I am taking the word of the police that he pointed the gun at them. Maybe I shouldn't because out of the thousands of arrests and incidents that happen daily across the country, we have a few videos that show spurious methods used by a few officers. I mean, I get that right now the public trust in officers is at an all time low for good reason, but given the sheer number of things that this guy already did that day, I have to assume that they might not be lying in this case.

As far as the officer, like I said, maybe he overreacted. But I would rather we risk the death of a clearly severely mentally ill person than read about the 11 year old he shot because he was crazy and had a gun.

In the end, you have the right to see and feel about the incident any way you see fit. You don't have to agree with a single thing I say. But I posted what I posted because I felt that just the video alone is not a clear picture of what was going on in this situation. I merely shared some of the facts that were printed by a major media outlet so that people could have the additional information to make up their minds about the video.

"Constructed" may also be a misnomer..., The way I see it, it may have been "Assembled" in 19 days, but the building had to start long before that, as construction began off-site with all the panels and parts being engineered so that they could be assembled on-site.

No mention of the length of time for that process.
Pretty sure everything wasn't manufactured on site.
I see a very large meccano/lego set being assembled.

I think the differences in the way we see things are, I see the grey areas, and you see in black and white. Once someone is guilty in your eyes you come down 100% on them.
Me seeing the shades isn't always better, as I give everyone the benefit of doubt, sometimes when they don't deserve it, but I give it to them till I'm proven wrong.
That's maybe why you're better suited for your career, and I'm not.
Being able to make a solid judgement call and sticking with it is a solid attribute.

I only suggest that you see the possibility that sometimes honest people make poor judgement calls.
Where you see someone purposely ramming a truck, I see someone who made a poor decision in switching lanes and then proceeds to think she's good to go, and maybe is concentrating to much on the truck ahead and not seeing the truck beside her.
Poor driving, absolutely, but I can't believe her judgement said purposely hit the truck.

On the flip side. The truck driver is driving well within his limits, and maybe is tired of people cutting him off. So this time he doesn't let her in, not expecting that she may not notice him closing her out.

He could have avoided the collision, or at least tried, as he saw it coming and made no effort. She didn't. I don't dispute her bad driving decision or skill in this matter. On the flip side, his driving choices are not any better.

Have a great day. Keep on keeping on

While you're addressing issues...
It would be nice to have some way of seeing who up/downvoted a comment on a touch interface. You can hover with a mouse to see it, but there's no way to do that on a phone/tablet.

Not really sure how you'd solve it though.

I suppose this works in the same way as seeing other people smiling can make you happy. Your brain responds to different cues all the time. Making yourself smile or laugh can make you feel better, feel happy. We don't look into another person's eyes like this until we reach a certain level of intimacy, so if that is happening then our brains respond as if you have that level of intimacy.

I'm going to find my wife and gaze into her eyes for four minutes. If she's lucky I'll tell her what's going on

One day I want to be the old couple.

Not necessarily. Perhaps they're downvoting the very idea that a drug experience is the same as a religious one. Perhaps they are downvoting your contention that doing certain drugs and causing yourself a certain amount of permanent brain damage is an act of courage somehow.
I, for one, think they ARE very similar, and that they are both just as meaningless, and both entirely in the mind of the effected, not in the real world in any way.
It's a bit like saying 'to those that don't believe in pink elephants, you simply haven't become addicted to alcohol then suffered from detoxifying hallucinations from a lack of alcohol...as that's the only way to 'see' the 'real' pink elephants, or you can simply believe in them, even though you don't see them, because others have seen them and written about it.

You are most likely correct that that is not what most people think, because most people simply don't think.

Wow...so any mystic, people generally regarded as useless for any other profession, should be given more weight than anyone who ever graced a stage, no matter what other credentials they may possess? I don't believe that is what most people think, not even most religious people.

Any functioning eye can see itself if you have a mirror. A sword can cut itself if you melt/bend it. ;-)

It seems that you think god had the option to create a perfect universe, but chose not to. If 'he' is omniscient, he does know how it will turn out. (side note, all BUT ONE of those infinite possibilities would be imperfection, but why would 'he' not choose perfection?)

The elegant function of the universe is no proof or even indication of any intelligence behind it, but is only proof of elegance of the laws of physics/nature. No intelligence or designer required for this elegance, and I think the need to have an anthropomorphized "creator" take credit is just a way to feel that somehow humans (which most would say 'he' created the universe for, and/or are made in 'his' image), and therefore you are, in some way, very like the 'creator' and deserving of misusing the universe in any way you see fit.

Non theists do not get mad at god anymore than you get mad at Santa for not bringing you what you want, or leprechauns for not handing you their gold. We get mad at people acting ridiculously, giving credit to phantoms for explainable events, confusing fact with myth, confusing impressionable undereducated people, wasting valuable time with nonsense and non sequitur (often simply as a method to obstruct change), and standing in the way of progress, both scientific and societal. We don't think god fails our standard (except the standard of reality or the requirement of actual existence), we think the very IDEA of god fails along with every definition or description...every time it's examined honestly....no matter which god you choose to examine.

I grew up exactly the opposite from your situation; I grew up in the secular world and I believed that it was the world, and that our understanding of the cosmos sufficiently explained the questions we had about life. Everything else was a wonderful mystery waiting to be discovered as we explored the worlds, inner and outer. I saw religion, and Christianity particularly, as backwards and ignorant, a sad relic of our more primitive past.

That all changed when I started to have supernatural experiences. I didn't believe in the supernatural at the time, and finding out that there was a spiritual reality blew my mind to say the least. I started exploring all of the different religions and beliefs out there, trying to make sense of it all, and basically just pieced together what I felt was different pieces of the truth from all of these differing ideas of reality.

It was then that I started to come to the realization that there is a God. He opened my eyes to see the ways He was, and always had been, shaping my life. He showed me His personal love, for me. I began to follow Him and He led me, after showing me many different things, to the bible. He confirmed it to me as His book and confirmed to me that Jesus is the Savior of the world. I never would have come to that conclusion on my own in a million years. Even when I knew there was a God, the last thing I thought was that He was the God of Christianity.

I went through a similar process to you; I had to integrate an entirely different way of seeing the world, and let go of the artifices that had been constructed in me since a young age. God set me free to be myself, the person He created me to be. He has made me into a new person, and I experience His love, help and guidance every single day of my life.

I'm sorry you were indoctrinated as a child. You never experienced the truth of John 3:3. That's why it all seems like a sham to you fed by ignorant people who were themselves indoctrinated. The Holy Spirit has to make you a new person, and that never happened to you. It is actually the best thing that could have happened because if you had stayed the way you were, you would have died thinking you were saved when you weren't. Now, you know you aren't a Christian which opens the door much wider for God to do an amazing thing in your life. I just want you to know that He loves you. Ask Him to reveal Himself to you. God bless.

If I were a hockey player, and another player took a swing at me and broke my nose, could I have them charged with assault? I don't see why not.

I'm sure there's a never-mentioned clause in their contracts that tries to prevent that, but that certainly wouldn't stand up in court. Of course, the player would be blackballed for it. There will come a day, though, when in the NHL one of the enforcers will forget to adequately pull his punches and the other player will be seriously maimed. If I were that player, I'd at least go for a civil suit against the league. Maybe contracts mean more in that case, but it would be the most likely way to see an end to the suits encouraging fights.

I mean, look, here I am watching a video of a fight in a league I've never really heard of before, and I haven't even watched an NHL game in 10 years, and hockey was my primary sport growing up.