It's not giving up the gun that might save lives, it's giving up the right to own them.
His gun probably wouldn't ever kill someone.
The right of any non restricted person to buy one is what leads to murderers having this tool often used to commit mass murder.
Would that stop all mass murders? Absolutely not, but it would stop SOME...probably most. Other methods people use are harder to assemble without being caught (bombs), are far less lethal (knives, arrows), and/or are harder to procure (tasteless poisons or gas). There's no other legal tool available to the public capable of mass murders with so little effort.

And yes, @BSR, this guy just made a sawed off AR15. He better post the video of him cutting it in half again if he doesn't want a visit from ATF. That gun almost certainly still fires, it's just incredibly more dangerous to the user now, and highly illegal. Not sure what you're saying in your snarky post, he didn't ever say a word otherwise.

this is amazingly tranquil and good. Not giving up on the awesomeness bliss of the song. *doublepromote

Kudos for not giving up.

Kudos for not giving up.

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

Because I have proudly called myself a feminist since at least 1976, if not before.

I started calling myself a Humanist also maybe in 1990? Somewhere around there? I am not giving up the term Feminist though. No matter who tries to co-opt it or suppress my use of it.

Or even "oppress" my use of it, if I might go that far. Why do I have to fight you to use a simple word to describe myself?

The scolding continues, by the way. Telling me that I am wrong to use a term I have proudly used for over 40 years. Because you and some of your friends don't like it and don't want to use it, for your own valid reasons.

Please stop telling Feminists that the word was never "descriptive of their goals" when in fact it is very descriptive.

Equality for women. Period.

I'm not telling you to stop labeling yourself only a Humanist. I was clear that I understood your point when I said that Humanist is an umbrella word that covers Feminist.

Is this going to be one of these long back-and-forths, where you try to talk me out of something? I really don't want to go there. It's exhausting.

Maybe the real question you might consider asking yourself is -- why is it so important to you that I hew to your definitions? Is it just an intellectual exercise, the fun of the argument? Well, it isn't fun to me. It feels lecturing and minimizing of my personal experience and knowledge and life lessons I have learned.

I know you don't intend that. However, I am telling you straight out, clearly, that is how it feels to me and I don't like it. I've been on the receiving end for FORTY FUCKING YEARS why it is inappropriate for some reason or other to call myself a feminist. The reasons change, but the goal always seems to be same: To stop me and others from overtly saying that we care about women and their place in society.

It's not going to happen. After 40 years, it just isn't going to happen.

I'm a feminist. I care about women and their place in society.

I'm not disagreeing with you that there are farms where the animals are treated well in comparison. But the majority of food does not come from these farms. Like you said these are usually small scale operations like your aunt. We're talking 50-60 billion animals a year. Millions of animals per hour in the US alone. They simply need to kill them as young as possible to even meet the demand, through industrialized means. They call it factory farming for a reason.
And no factory farmers don't care about the well-being of animals. Any minor growth benefits of happy animals are easily outweighed by a few hormone injections. It's cheaper and faster. If they cared: They wouldn't rip piglets balls off with their bare hands to neuter them. They wouldn't keep "cage less" chickens in the dark to save on electricity. They wouldn't hold a chickens head to a sander or iron to de-beak them. They wouldn't grind up baby male chickens in a blender alive. They wouldn't cut off pigs tales without anesthetic. So on and So on. Your food might comes from some nice farm like your aunts, but for most of people it does not.

You're right that eating animals that died of old age is probably the only truly ethical way you could eat them. Though they'd have to have reproduced naturally too.

I'm not a fan of the eat less concept because of the morality aspect. It might work for some people, and it's probably not a bad short term stepping stone to get to people thinking about the consequences. But it just doesn't add up to me ethically: I wouldn't go from kicking a dog 10 times a week to just 3 times a week, because it means I'm kicking 7 less dogs. It's still a terrible thing to do, so why even be part of that cycle.

Because most people are raised as meat eaters, I think their perspective is completely wrong, as was mine. When they talk to vegans they always give reasons to not give up animal products. But to me the question really is: What is the reason TO eat any animal products at all?


Health wise it's a no-brainer there are a ton of good books about nutrition, like "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger, or any book by Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, or Dr. John McDougall. ( all their work is based on thousands of peer reviewed and published research papers ).

Animal compassion wise it's a no-brainer. Animals want to live and be happy period. Everything else is just an excuse to keep exploiting them.

With documentaries like Cowspiracy and Earthlings coming out, it's people are becoming aware that we're all on one planet and if people went vegan overnight, that's 1/2 of the global warming gone. That's 1 football field a second of rainforest (and all of the animals and unique species ) being destroyed. That's the fish not going extinct in the next 10 years. That's GMO's not killing the pollinating bees and earthworms (which are necessary part of the ecosystem, we'll die without them).

So what reason is really left to eat any animal products?

Taste. People don't want to become vegan because they think they are giving up something and it's not true. It's more like trading a bad habit for something truly great. And it's free. And it has the potential to change the world.

I'm yet to hear a good reason to eat any animal product.(from anyone I mean)

I will not give up on you *promote

So if an individual or a company spends hundreds of hours or millions of dollars creating something that only exists in the digital realm, everyone has the right to copy it or even resell it? Is that seriously your position?

Copyright is not only not out of date, it is more relevant than ever.

The problem is that corporations are abusing it. Copyright was meant to give a creator a reasonable period of time to earn a living from their work and then it went back to the public domain. This has now been perverted by the likes of Disney to mean "we own this shit forever" (the irony being they made their fortune from public domain stories).

But copyright as a concept is still totally valid. I write software for a living. Some stuff, I give away. But that's my decision. I'm sure as hell not giving up my livelihood because you read some Stallman.

I don't think there is a single authority that would advocate someone speeding above 90mph in an emergency situation. In those situations it is my opinion that most experts would suggest waiting for the ambulance/police, not racing down the road like in the movies.

your 2.2. "point" is no different than people saying that gun owners would not give up their rights. It's not an argument its just a statement of something, it provides no support of anything other than "the world cant change that much" and I agree, in the case of gun ownership as well.

As for the difficulty in speed metering, look to many motorcycles and race cars for how to limit speed, it is already done today.

I use the example of cars because I'm not advocating stopping the use of cars, just the inability to travel above speeds that are reasonable. It's a change in safety that only affects enthusiasts or criminals in much the same way that gun laws would which is why I use it. Also because most of us know that although the majority of us own cars and operate them, we dont tend to exceed 90mph or drive under the influence ourselves and so it seems like a bit of an over-reaction.

My intention is not to compare driving and gun ownership directly. My intent was to compare the differing logic that people will apply to situations that have very analogous themes based on their personal bias or beliefs.

As much as many people see no reason for your average person to own a gun, I see no reason for the average person to be able to travel at high speeds. Just like affecting legal gun ownership will only lower violence some...so will limiting speeds only lower vehicle deaths some.

Just like removing all guns and the slow change in society resulting from it might one day minimize gun violence, so would removing all private ownership of cars require a painful period of mass transit expansion but eventually a world where rapid mass transit and only professional vehicle use would minimize vehicle deaths.

I would argue that the last two situations (all guns and all vehicles being gone with proper transit support) would be ideal for society. But they are also not going to happen any time soon. However how we can be so focused on guns and their use (particularly the use of legally obtained guns) in saving and protecting lives, while ignoring other places in society that cause more death is odd to me. Especially if those changes are just as obvious or palatable as extreme gun control measures when gauged across all demographics.

the only way and i mean the ONLY way a peaceful protest by way of civil disobedience will EVER get any traction is by clogging the machine ie:blocking business,traffic and everyday functioning of not only government but everyday business.
this is not my opinion but historical fact.
see:
martin luther king.
vietnam protests of UC.
civil rights protests.
the triangle shirtwaist factory and the consequent protests for labor and the fight for unionized labor.
and these are just a few examples off the top of my head.the list is massive and does not only pertain to america but in america we have the RIGHT to assemble and the RIGHT of redress.
these protestors want to be arrested.
they want the state (in the form of police) to overstep,brutalize and abuse their authority in order to get the message out by way of conflict made violent by the people sworn to protect and serve.
every time the police (be they individual or enmasse) perpetrate violence on peaceful protestors that protest swells in numbers in a matter of days.
this was evident in the 1920's and it is evident today.

the problems of understanding arise when people give their power over to the powerful.they acquiesce to the very powers seeking to disempower them.
so we get things like "free speech zones" which are far away from the very thing being protested and most certainly no where near any business or government functions.

this is not a lib/repub issue but an american issue.for decades the government has slowly chipped away at our civil liberties and given more power to itself.this is what governments do,this is what ANY powerful institution does=keep itself relevant and IN power and the ONLY thing power fears is?
the people.
again,not my opinion but historically accurate.

this is about challenging authority.
you say that when a policemen gives a "lawful" order to disperse that should be the end of it.
i say:i question your "lawful order" as it hinders my right to assemble and give my government a redress of my grievances.
that policemen is ordering me to give up my right of redress and that is a right i will not give up.the authority of that policemen has been bestowed "by the people".the very government in which hands down orders to that policemen has been elected "by the people",and they were elected to create laws and govern "for the people" and when that machine no longer "serves the people" it must be resisted in the only way that has been known to work:
shut down the machine,
because "the people" are not multinational corporations with deep pockets who can influence legislators by way of lobbyists.we cant purchase the kind of time that a corporation can to make our case to a senator or congressmen.we cannot influence public opinion by way of tv commercials or entire networks.
but we CAN sit and stop traffic,or slow the flow of business and THAT is when they take notice.
and the response is always the same:
ignore.
and if that doesnt work?
ridicule.
if that fails?
co-opt in any way possible (see:tea party)
cant co-opt?
oppress,bully and intimidate by authoritarian means.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.

@GenjiKilpatrick: You're conflating a dysfunctional democracy with the douchebags who're making it dysfunctional.

Obama is not Bush. Give me a fucking break.

Click through this giant list and tell me one thing that Bush would ever even consider:
http://obamaachievements.org/list

You can't.

The system we've tried to setup can work, if only evil douchebags would stop trying to get rich, kill people, take a dump on mother nature, and fuck over everyone else in the process. So no, I'm not giving up on it.

It's that old theory of Republicans claiming the system doesn't work, then once in office, they prove it.

So far, the 112th congress--which is GOP/Tea Party--is the least productive congress in history. Worse than the "do-nothing" congress of 1948. These assholes won't even debate an unbelievably important right fucking now jobs bill, but keep shoving horseshit bills about abortion, school lunches, PBS, obamas birth certificate, and combined with the stalling tactics, secret holds, massive fillibusters and so much nonsense it makes people want to throw a chair through their television.

Approval:
Obama: 48%
Congress: 13%

I wonder what that's all about? Could Obama's low numbers mean people are mad he isn't fixing this shit, and Congresses because they're a fucking corrupt, pathetic and evil bunch of grifters that everyone hates? Hmmmmmm....

Oh and check this out: The Republicans created Bin Laden, the Democrats took him out. Talk about cleaning up someone else's mess, sheesh!


@Quantummushroom is dead-on about Clinton and glass-steagal. I point my finger directly at that motherfucker for knowingly signing off the collapse of the international finance world.

Let's all agree to disagree. I don't think we're about to convince one another anytime soon. Ideas and beliefs that a person has learned and witnessed in their own unique environment and life experiences can give you a very different opinion.

I for one have lived half my life in Korea and the current half in US. I used to think Americans were well mannered, sophisticated people back when I was growing up in Korea. After moving to America, I realized that Americans did in fact were well mannered and culturally sophisticated, but only in terms of western ideologies.


For Americans, Saying 'bless you' is nice, but turning your head away from guest when drinking alcohol is weird. Holding doors for other people is nice, but not giving up your subway seat when a middle aged person is standing is fine. English and German sounds distinctively different, but Korean and Japanese sounds the same. Not tipping your waiter is looked down upon, but not giving your close relatives' children large sums of money after visiting their house is perfectly fine.

Chilaxe may value certain traits over as an individual from another society with very different circumstance of living, and same could be said about longde. You both have lived different environments and different experiences. For some people, certain ethnic groups seem more desirable over the other, while for others, there isn't much difference as to where they're from. (*one society might value personable manners and public order over individual uniqueness and athletic prowess, and vice versa)

You are both absolutely correct from your stand point, and both wrong from each other's point of view at the same time. Accept it, and stop yourselves from becoming one of those people who starts flame wars over the internet with a complete stranger.

Posting it...

Begging.....

Self promotiing....

And finally, just like the vid -- success!!

Why do I find this journey so compelling? Went through my little periods of boredom, and get on with it, but HE WOULD NOT GIVE UP.

One wonders if he could have done it much sooner and he wanted us to go through this with him.

i know i'm not a scientist, but "limits" have been proven incorrect many times before. So let's not give up on a death star just yet

>> ^blankfist:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/dystopianfuturetoday" title="member since January 9th, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">dystopianfuturetoday, as government grows you cannot have a government of, for and by...


Oh, we can't? How do you know? Because we've been trying for thousands of years? Well. Plenty of righteous people have been fighting religion for thousands of years. We haven't given up on that, and I think we're finally making some headway.

It's fucking hopeless you're saying. We should just give up and devolve. That's a damned sad perspective, because a world in which we cannot work together, by governing humanity, is a savage world not fit for your children.

My cognitive dissonance must border on religious because I CANNOT and WILL NOT give up my hope for a government of, for and bi [sic].

P.S. Would be great if vs could fix the damned quote system.