>> ^Confucius:

bad stuff but seriously....the bike guy was all over that lane...hug the edge of the lane dont la di daaddle in it.


The problem is if you hug the edge of the lane people will try to pass you and some people are not good judges of how big their car is. You're much safer taking up up the whole lane and force the lane change then to have some soccer mom on her 6th mocha frappe rushing to get to little jimmy's soccer practice smacking you into a concrete divider.

Your video, Driver Attemps Hit and Run, Gets Blocked in By Other Drivers, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^toferyu:

Just to clear things up : the hit'n runner was the teen, the bicyclist was 50, which actually explains everything :-P (from news article)
"Bethlehem Police Commissioner Jason Schiffer and Mayor John Callahan honored Richard Gubish Jr., 43, of Northampton, and Jud Smull, 17, of Bethlehem during a news conference this afternoon to commend their quick thinking.
“I’m just glad I got there quick,” said Gubish before the event, his hands stuffed in his LANTA jacket.
Frank Pavlick, 50, of Bethlehem, was hit Monday afternoon by a 17-year-old driver in the northbound lanes of the Fahy Bridge."


Ohh good catch.

>> ^Porksandwich:
Bus driver was pretty on the spot with that. Most seem pretty laser focused on going forward, wouldn't expect him to see that happen and react that quickly.


The bus driver was probably watching because he knew that bicycle was riding in a bad spot and was gonna get hit. If I saw that guy riding there, I would think " look at that idiot!! hes gonna get hit!". ...and then watch my rearview untill I was proven right.

This response proves you didn't even read the page that you are using to "debunk" the video. It doesn't address this video. This page, which contains one paragraph and a broken link to a video, is the one addressing it:

http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm

Again, you present yourself as the voice of chicken little, as your perpetrate another myth upon the overpopulation myth, which is the myth of peak oil. We are not in danger of running out of oil anytime soon; in fact, because of new technology and methods, such as the fracking boom, our domestic energy production is expected to rise significantly.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/fracking-boom-could-finally-cap-myth-of-peak-oil-peter-orszag.html

Since 1976 our proven oil reserves are double from where they started, and new reserves are being found continuously:

http://en.mercopress.com/2010/10/25/petrobras-confirms-tupi-field-could-hold-8-billion-barrels

http://www.albawaba.com/iran-discovers-huge-oil-field-report-415465

There is also evidence that oil fields are refilling:

http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

The fact is that there is an oil boom in the western hemisphere:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/americas/recent-discoveries-put-americas-back-in-oil-companies-sights.html

The coal oil sands in Canada alone are estimated to hold 175 billion barrels of oil. What I find interesting hpqp, as you do another hit and run, is that you have all the faith in the world that science will solve all of our problems, except when it comes to your favorite doomsday hypothesis.

As I have already proven, we produce more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem is in the inequity of man and in the inefficient and wasteful distribution. We lose over 1/3 of the food we produce to waste. We have more than enough fuel to supply our agriculture, and the research shows that having smaller and more energy efficient farms will increase yields even further, and not significantly impact biodiversity.


>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY


The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.
That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).

Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect

You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

What I was doing was attacking the foundations of your argument, and providing evidence for my positions. What you have provided is a lot of speculation based on loose interpretations of our history through a secular lens. I would say I have had some success being that the claims you are making have become progressively more modest:

first post: "Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men"

second post: "I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians."

third post: "Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied)"

first post: "Yes, our government was intended to be secular."

second post: "More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government."

I'm going to be sparse in my reply. Since you have seen fit to do a hit and run, I don't intend to spend much time on this.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

No, my main point was that the establishment clause does not mean seperation of church and state, which is the basis for all of this hullabaloo. You've basically conceded this point to me:

"I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others."

You're admitting here that the purpose of the establishment clause was to keep one denomination from gaining control over the others. It wasn't to protect the country from Christian theism, it was protect the country from a particular flavor of Christian theism from gaining power. What "religion" meant was denomination religion, not doctrinal religion. So if this was the purpose of the establishment clause, it can't mean what you argue it does elsewhere.

"And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care."

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian


This is a bizzare comment and it shows you still haven't grasped my point. If you knew what you were doing, you would known that the whole idea of "seperation of church and state" is based on that letter. Obviously I was well aware of that, and fundementally disagreed with that interpretation, which is why I was busy providing you evidence that proved that this was a misinterpretation of Jeffersons intent. If he meant what you and others say he did, then he wouldn't have acted so contrarily to it during his time in government. Barbar got it; he knew exactly what I was saying. It has apparently gone completely over your head.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

When I say "shocking moral decline", I am not talking about womens rights or homosexual rights. I am talking about degeneration of civil society, the increase in crime, drug use, teen pregnancy, and many other factors which paint of picture of a country that is morally debased and getting worse by the year. I'm not saying it was ever perfect, but it had a foundation; biblical morality. Now that the foundation has been removed we are in a moral free fall.

Here are some statistics:

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.

Perhaps you're just very young and have no context, but in my observation things in this country have gotten palpably worse in the short time I've been alive, and most of that time I have been observing this I was agnostic. Worse yet, this effect appears to be expodential. Not only is America losing its place on the worlds stage, but internally it has become something like babylon.

The bible doesn't say you need to be a Christian to be moral. It says we all have a god given conscience that tells us right and wrong. This relativism that you're talking about is exactly the problem. If its your truth and my truth, then there is no truth, and no one has a rock to stand on. The thing about Truth is that it the same regardless of when it was written or where it came from. It is the same regardless of what people believe. And the bible is true. There is a God, and He has imposed a moral law, and those who violate it will face judgement. That is why Christ came, to save us from our sins, because all have sinned and fallen short. Are humans smarter? In terms of knowledge, sure. In terms of wisdom? Not a bit. Human beings are no more wise than they were when the bible was written. The words of Christ are wise and they are for all time. In them, there is life, and that abundantly.
>> ^LukinStone:

>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^Gallowflak:
And everyone becomes a paranoid, desperate loser in a desperately miserable society.

paranoid about what exactly?
If you're paranoid that you're going to hit someone with your car and get caught. Well I'm just going to say, "good"
Don't drive like you're the only one on the road and you'll be fine. It's really not that difficult to drive safely, nor do you really get to your destination significantly quicker if you drive recklessly.

Paranoid simply because you know you're being observed and recorded, and that even the most minor transgression or accident could be easily punishable. Paranoid because every vehicle on the road has a camera pointed at you. Paranoid because living in a surveillance state is an awful thing, made even seedier when it's other citizens doing the surveilling.
The "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" argument always makes my goddamn skin crawl.
I'm going to assume the rest of your comment was a general statement, rather than directed at me.


I understand where you're coming from and I respect it. But when you think about the world we live in now. The right to privacy has become kinda obsolete, IMO. When you think about it, you're watched/monitored and recorded in so many places in modern society that are all commonly accepted that the idea of privacy on a public road is silly.

You're watched and monitored by your friends..your family, your co-workers, your boss every day, every minute of your life. Every purchase you make with a debit/credit card is recorded which ultimately tracks your movements throughout the day

So from that perspective, the idea of being monitored on a publicly used road...for the sake of safety, for the sake of catching the lowlifes that hit and run....is an easy choice to make, IMO

The warning about trading freedom for security is not lost upon me. But I don't think we're really trading freedom, nor does it increase security. It merely adds accountability to ones actions. It's a public road we're talking about here and if there is a law on the books that you break on that public road and it's caught on camera...then you should pay the price. The right to privacy simply doesn't exist on a public road.

I'm also looking at this from the following viewpoint: How many worthless laws are out there on the books, that sound good on paper, but in reality, are worthless because it's impossible to enforce them. What if it was possible to enforce these laws BECAUSE of cameras everywhere?

In addition...why is it OK to police the police by filming them with our smartphones to ensure that they are doing their job properly, but it's not ok to film a reckless driver, endangering innocent lives out of this mis-placed desire of privacy?

For a second I thought it was this video again:
http://videosift.com/video/Outcry-in-China-over-hit-and-run-toddler-left-in-street

But at least this time people helped, and the little girl was okay.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Issykitty.

*dupeof=http://wheels.videosift.com/video/How-NOT-to-flee-the-scene-of-a-hit-and-run

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Hybrid. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://wheels.videosift.com/video/How-NOT-to-flee-the-scene-of-a-hit-and-run

Gold member or above please?

Invocations (dupeof=http://wheels.videosift.com/video/How-NOT-to-flee-the-scene-of-a-hit-and-run) cannot be called by SDGundamX because SDGundamX is not privileged - sorry.

>> ^Diogenes:
the police asked what happened, and all the chinese said i hit her. the paramedics revived her enough for her to confirm that it was me who struck her. can you believe it? they were all ready to take me in when i managed to make the point of her injuries being inconsistent with my riding my bicycle home in the opposite direction. now, before making comparisons with our overly litigious societies, keep in mind that 99% of their lawsuits are 'settled' on the spot... and in cash.

Fuck, I'm never ever going to China. That's just fucked up.

>> ^mentality:

It has nothing to do with martial rule. China's repression is notorious, but only aimed at politically sensitive topics.


As a matter of fact, China's repression is notoriously aimed at everything that moves. Never heard of the countless stories of chicken thieves sentenced to death? Or of the citizens petitioning the local government over some company dumping stuff in the river, only to get harassed by the cops, because the CEO has connections with The Party?
In China, the police and Justice are famously ineffective and corrupt. To keep up the appearance of strength, they will come down hard on anyone they catch, regardless of their crime or even their guilt. If you are a regular folk, you have no money or connection so you'd better keep quiet if you don't want trouble. Basically if you're a crook, you have less chance to get in trouble than if you make your voice heard. And once again, I'm not saying this explains this specific story, I'm saying this doesn't make for a sane society.

People have this idea of China still being some sort of Stalinist state. It is not. It's the Wild West over there, and the robber barons are in charge.


>> ^mentality:


It is comforting to be in denial, to blame this on our differences. There must be something wrong with THEM; this could NEVER happen in OUR civilized society.


Mmm, maybe you're reading a bit too much in what I said? To the question "dictature or culture", I pretty much answered "not culture". For all you know, I could be Chinese. And that kind of thing could very well happen in an European society; case in point: the "whatever happens, walk by and pretend NOT to notice ANYTHING" attitude reminded me of Central/Western Europe under Communist rule more than anything else. This has left that kind of stigma there to this day (Russia: non-white baby stabbed in stroller in the middle of the street in broad daylight? Sorry, no witnesses!).

>> ^Diogenes:

i have seen and even experienced the same in taiwan, which is democratic. the culture simply puts less value on a human life and welfare than many westerners do... you can see it in their medical system (universal health care is not what you might think here)


Your story about the good Samaritan getting sued on the spot for helping, I do get (if you were talking about mainland China), because I've seen that kind of story several times in reports covering this news here (to explain why people would not stick their neck out).
However the part about Taiwan, care to back that up? Taiwan has the standard of living of Western Europe, and they in fact do have universal health care, something which cannot be said of the USA for example.