I recently visited a slaughterhouse where they are in the beginning of the season. They unalive 3k+ animals daily.

I am not a vegetarian, and I have a deep understanding that we need food to survive, and that meat is important part of our diet.

Nevertheless, this hit me hard in multiple parts.

First, just listening to all the animals outside inside trailers.
Secondly, contemplating their imminent fate.
Third, what does this do to your psyche if you are the one unaliving x amount of animals each day.

Life is precious. I'll be first in line the moment we figure out how to grow proteins and carbs in laboratories.

Wow.

This is why our police does not need to have access to military gear. You had one suspect with a weapon, you talk him out or you rush multiple parts of the home. What you don't do is blow out every wall in every room, tear down the fences all around, and make it look like a warzone.

Now, as a dog owner, I would be pissed because if they knocked down my fence, both of my beloved pets would run out and be hurt or killed. What if there were kids playing in those other yards? The sheer lack of consideration for the damage they were doing is atrocious.

The worst part of this is none of that money that is going to be paid on lawsuits over this is going to come out of those jackbooted thug's pockets. It's going to come out of the people of that community's taxes. That is horseshit. I would force them to sell their toys and demilitarize, then take that money to pay people.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR OUR POLICE TO BE ARMED WITH MILITARY GEAR!!! If you are going to police us with the same gear the military has, then you are basically the military and should be subject to Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act of 1807.

*promote

@bareboards2 When i watched it earlier I considered the possibility of it being a dupe, and in the end would not consider it one. If the other videos would have been put together in a yt playlist in one video sure, but do to it being submitted in multiple parts, I technically would not consider it a dupe. It's not a dupe of any one particular video(part) so i say keep it.

If you are truly curious I hope you'll read everything.

TLDR Post Inc:

It's basically pragmatism and the slippery slope. You're making a registry of all the citizens who own guns. I mean have you ever applied for your firearms license before? Have you ever purchased a handgun? It's pretty crazy.

I wanted to purchase a handgun about 10 years ago after I got held up. It took me over 6 months to get my permit. Then it took me about another month to be able to purchase a handgun.

The Process:
In order to get your firearms id card you have to apply for it. Part of the process involved me having a sit down "evaluation" with a detective that was basically an interrogation for about 30 minutes.

Then once that detective says "this guys not crazy" He takes his form and all my information and mails it to the FBI. Then I had to wait about six months for the FBI to say "this guys not crazy and/or a terrorist.

When I have my Firearms ID card I can buy a shotgun or a rifle if I want that's no problem. But if I want to buy a handgun (which I did) I have to go back to get a handgun permit. Luckily since I was applying for my firearms permit they also gave me one (read one) permit to buy a handgun. I could buy one handgun; If I wanted more I had to apply for ANOTHER permit. Not another Firearms ID Card just another Handgun permit.

So I take my permit and I purchase said gun. I can't purchase the gun after 5:00 PM because the NIC office over at the FBI closes and they have to call it in. Even AFTER they call it in I still had to wait like 6 days before I could pick it up.

I receive a copy of the permit (and a receipt) , the dealer gets a copy, and the last part gets sent to the FBI. Once the FBI confirms they have a copy of the permit (which includes the serial # that is on multiple parts of the gun) then and only then am I allowed to pickup my firearm.

So even if I sold it to someone everyone would know know who it belonged to beforehand.

I'm not sure how much more gun control you can have. The "gun" that needs the most "control" are handguns because they are used in almost all gun related crimes if you look at the stats.

I wont' get into hypothetical situations about how citizens could perform those checks or whatever. I just want to show how regulated things are already. The idea that I could purchase like 10 handguns and then re-sell them all to someone else and NEVER have it traced back to me seems almost impossible. Heck I doubt I could even get approved to own that many handguns!

Also:

I'm not a "giant conspiracy" kind of person. But I feel like with the way government has been going with Guantanamo, stop and frisk, not really enforcing a lot of anti-trust laws, not really prosecuting some of the big banks responsible for what happened, etc etc etc I just feel like there really an upward swing for government control and collusion with protecting their own interests and not the interests of the people.

I don't see the government as an instrument of the people anymore it just seems to be wealthy people patting each other on the back.

What happened in Boston really upset me where people were just pulled out of there houses at gunpoint because there "could be" a terrorist nearby.

I believe that Obama has a good reason for trying to put these tools in place and he has no motive behind it he is just trying to protect the American People in his own way. But I don't believe gun control will help at all and all it will do is put more of a hindrance on law abiding citizens. I'd equate these laws to Anti-Piracy solutions? Ala Sims3 and Diablo etc etc. It just punishes the actual customer NOT the criminal.

If you told me there was a way to ensure program the registry of gun owners could only be searched if the striations from a bullet were scanned that was used in a crime or something like that I'd be fine with it. But there really is no way to do that.

Sorry it was long but it's not really something I can just say something short.

I'm sure people will says "Well what are your guns going to do against tanks and helicopters and xyz xyz". First I'll point to Iraq and Afghanistan and how well those "wars" went. Everyone can agree it was a disaster and we probably made a lot of terrorists by just killing people innocent or not. The same thing would happen here in America.

Would the government actually TRY to take over? I don't' believe so because it's not in our best financial interests. Everyone wants to stay wealthy and some sort of civil war would be horrible for our economy. But I believe over time constantly just eroding our rights will just lead to that. People got pulled out of their homes at gunpoint and screamed at by police in boston and they were just like "Well the police are just trying to keep us safe!" I just find that creepy.

There's a saying blah blah blah doesn't go out with a bang it happens with a whimper. I'm not going to make myself look smart by googling the quote.

Anyway that's my whole post sorry if it's long but I'm tired. I would have put it in the discussion section but I'm not at the appropriate star level.

I remember seeing this in multiple parts as a kid/child/callow ant.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

This is similar in language to what @oritteropo said, but I think I'm saying something different here.
It's common to take multiple youtube videos, make a playlist on youtube and then embed that here. Some hosts don't allow playlist creation, though, and I've even had to sift multiple parts from different hosts at times. Can we get some way to build playlists of that sort here? Even if we can't automatically advance from one video to the next and we have to click links to go forward, being able to sift multi-part videos as a single entity would be a nice touch.


Yes, yes, yes. I've wanted to be able to do this since day 1. Submitting a post that is a playlist of items should let us just enumerate the embeds we want in the playlist, not have to build the playlist elsewhere and embed that. (This will also make it much easier to fix dead videos when the playlist is dead, but not the underlying videos themselves, which happens more than you might think.)

This is similar in language to what @oritteropo said, but I think I'm saying something different here.

It's common to take multiple youtube videos, make a playlist on youtube and then embed that here. Some hosts don't allow playlist creation, though, and I've even had to sift multiple parts from different hosts at times. Can we get some way to build playlists of that sort here? Even if we can't automatically advance from one video to the next and we have to click links to go forward, being able to sift multi-part videos as a single entity would be a nice touch.

@hpqp

I've watched a lot of his videos too... not sure why you keep assuming I haven't. Check out some of his other vids on the Sift and you'll see I've downvoted many of them (not all--it's hard for anyone including Pat to be wrong 100% of the time) too. The more I watch, the less I think he is being ironic and the more convinced I am he is being dead-straight honest.

In fact, I don't see how this video can be interpreted to be ironic in any way, shape, or form. If we use Wikipedia again to look at the definition of verbal irony we see that:

Verbal irony is a disparity of expression and intention: when a speaker says one thing but means another, or when a literal meaning is contrary to its intended effect. An example of this is when someone says "Oh, that's beautiful", when what they mean (probably conveyed by their tone) is they find "that" quite ugly.

So how is this diatribe ironic? For it to be ironic, what he is expressing must be the opposite of what he is saying. In other words, he must mean that he really doesn't want them to feel bad after he insults them. In fact, he agrees with their methods. Clearly that's an absurd interpretation of this video.

He is being sarcastic in this video (according to the definitions from my last post), he is being a hypocrite (saying he believes the meaning of life is joy but then arguing its okay to insult other people cuz, you know, they started it), but I don't see how you can argue he's being ironic.

I understand that you believe Pat actually means "criticize" when he says "insult" but taken as a whole I don't think this video gives you much evidence to support that view. Conversely, there's lots of support there to show that when he says insult he means insult. For example at 1:34...

"And for this reason not only do I have a perfect right to insult your religion, I have a right to insult you personally the moment I have to hear about your poxy religion."

FYI according to the urban dictionary "poxy" means: crappy, stupid, dumb.

It's pretty difficult to explain that statement away as a criticism of religion and not a direct insult. Just look at how he says that sentence (his facial expression, intonation, etc.). He is dead-serious.

Just to recap my main points:

1) Claiming that it's okay to insult religion because "they started it" makes it difficult to take your arguments any more seriously than a childish rant
2) Throwing insults around is not likely to accomplish anything--even though you have the right to do something, doesn't always mean it's a good idea to do so.

I absolutely agree with you that we should not let people squelch criticism of religion by claiming that criticism is equivalent to insult. But neither should we, in turn, equate blatant insult with genuine criticism.

As far as Sagan goes... when you have to change multiple parts of someones quote in order to make it sound like they support your views, you're not really quoting them--you're just putting words in their mouth. Sagan was a class-act gentleman who knew how to argue rationally and found no need to throw shit around like some angry ape in order to make a point. Pat could learn a great deal about persuasive arguing from Sagan.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

This needs to be longer!


It's multiple parts.

No no no, killing unemployment at this time would be just as immoral as starting it in the first place. I was making two points I guess, let me be more precise

First I think the way the unemployment system is wired is completely unfair as many people are paying into a system that very few people benefit from. So as a solution for helping out of work people or getting the economy back on its feet, it does a poor job imo. However, in these bad times, to take it away from people who were expecting it is just as wrong, kicking a man when he is down so to speak. If I were to phase out unemployment, you would do it when things are good not when they are the worse they have been in decades.

With that said, it is such a flawed system that to expand it seems misguided. In the places that I have been working at now, most every single person is a contract laborer. Not but a single person in thousands that I have ever met would be covered by unemployment but every single one pays its tax...it is wrong. If I had more money (I save lots) from my last job I would have a significantly better safety net.

Moreover, this safety net doesn't protect the most fragile members of society. People who are low skills and work multiple part time jobs, contract laborers, and the elderly who work part time to subsidies their income, and more. The most exposed in society are in the kinds of jobs and positions that are not covered by unemployment. The people whom are usually covered are decently educated full time office workers, which are a small minority of people.

This isn't a case of me wanted to yank the carpet out from people, not at all. Like I said, I would never want to eliminate a program like this during a time like this. However, I would also suggest that it doesn't help as many people as one might suppose, and surely doesn't help those people who are at the bottom.

My ORIGINAL point is that there are much better things we could be focusing on. We still have 2 wars we are spending trillions on, a new health care plan that is going to cost a trillion or 2, and an out of control fed bailing out their wall street counterparts. I feel as if more good could be done getting those things under control than addressing a program that meets the needs of less than 2/3rds of those who payed for the same help( I found the real number and 2/5s of unemployed people qualified for unemployment in 2009, so at that time, a minority was being sponsored by a majority, I suspect the same is still true).

Tags for this video have been changed from 'mitchell, webb, multiple parts, doubles, skit, femme, webb, hilarious' to 'mitchell, webb, multiple parts, doubles, skit, femme, webb, hilarious, Hercule Poirot' - edited by ponceleon

Sometimes you can't do a playlist because the video host doesn't offer the feature. I really don't think we need a rule about this. People can vote for multiple parts .. or not if their conscience is bothered by the idea.

I honestly think it's annoying enough that there should be a rule against submitting multiple parts of one video. My main concern is that it will destroy the flow of comments - people commenting on one part of the video won't want to copy their comments to the next part, so conversation is broken up.

I personally try to link to other parts but don't submit them.

Oh and here is Part I of Part I (there are multiple parts of part one):

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Elegant-Universe-Pt-1

And here are the rest of the parts of Part 1:

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YpRyKbeIz8

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ikbRzIxeg

4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAK-q6giRmE

5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syNJs6PSpZQ

The "list" is currently 21 items long, but that is sort of a massive misrepresentation because most of the items have sub parts.

Just because I know some of you love hearing about such things I'll list some of the more "fun" features.

- Dead Page
- Collective Filters
- Long / Sports
- Multiple Part Videos
- Advanced Search
- RSS feeds for everything
- A "Spoiler" invocation

Those are the fun ones anyway. Most of the stuff though is growing pains / site maintenance activities that are less enjoyable, but equally important.