You neglected to mention how incredibly annoying the 'presenter' is.

Definitely a top 10.
He must think it's white boy day!
Don't neglect the scene where Hopper tells Walken a 'story'. Beautiful!
RIP- Brittany Murphy
Full on *quality

Totally. I imagine I wasn't as clear as I'd hoped, but that's precisely what I meant by:

Parents who love their children so much that they let them do whatever the fuck they want create exactly the same type of monsters as parents, if any, who ignore/neglect/leave their children to do whatever the fuck they want.

That's one of the biggest problems in this country: Parents who love their children so much that they let them do whatever the fuck they want create exactly the same type of monsters as parents, if any, who ignore/neglect/leave their children to do whatever the fuck they want.

I'm sickened by parents who just sit there ignoring their kids or occasionally ask them if they could please find it in themselves to perhaps decide to stop their bad behavior.

Real parenting means teaching your offspring to live in a society and be conscientious and considerate of others, not placating them by feeding their bad behavior with positive reinforcement and hoping desperately they'll parent themselves.

I always think of a kid as starting out as an ugly pile of soft, wet clay. You as a parent must get your hands dirty and form and shape that thing into something beautiful, otherwise it'll just harden into a horrible mess that can never be made right again.

</rant>

You just have to remember Lantern that there are two unwritten rules when it comes to Videosift commentary.

1. Never, in any way, show support for the police.
2. Never show support or defend religion.

If you do either of those things, you will be shat upon as if it was a downpour and you neglected to bring an umbrella. I admit, I will be one of the first to rip into someone over either if they don't have a logical argument; such as people defending Islam. But I am also aware that there are good cops and good religious people out there, they are just rarely videotaped because it lacks sensationalism.

Now I don't have all the information on this video, but I have been stopped in a similar situation many years ago for driving late at night in an expensive sports car. Why, you ask, incredulously? The cop was nice enough in my case to explain that the area I was leaving, having just come from a friend's house where we were playing xbox, was a known manufacturing area for meth. He asked why I was out so late, I told him. He asked if I had any drugs or dead bodies in the car in a joking fashion, I told him that he could clearly see everything in the car but the spare tire so I didn't. He told me the above thing about why he stopped me and let me go. Well, he also gave me a warning for not using a turn signal at a stop sign, but who really uses their turn signals all the time at 3am in the morning?

Specifically, what 'references to deficiencies in your character and process' appear clear? I think you're reading into what I wrote, because I didn't mention your character, nor reference a 'process' that I know of (except a thought process of some people that believe disproven theories, like the one that claimed vaccines cause autism. If that's what you mean, be honest and say so clearly please, as you have indicated it is not the reason you are upset and that you have no clear position either way, leaving me with no explanation whatsoever).
I did re-read my post and response and can't tell what you're talking about. As I read it, it was a flat disputing of the content of the video, a question about why you found it inappropriate, and a request for clarity about your disjointed responses.
Yours however were clearly disrespectful ad hom attacks ("I have little to no respect to offer." and "I do, however, have a disdain for apparent character deficiencies") without adding to discourse or discussion of the content of the video, only rant about how nasty I am for saying it was BS (a position backed up by facts and data) or asking why you downvoted (apparently inappropriately, as you can't find an answer to "what's inappropriate or offensive")....but I'm the mean nasty guy referencing deficiencies in YOUR character and process? Huh?
I'm also unsure what you mean by "my opinion of you remains intact and as I would prefer it."...as you neglect to mention what that opinion is. The implication is that you have a low opinion of me, because you prefer it that way. Am I missing something?
I again note you have still not answered the original question that set you off, so I'll ask once again....What did you find offensive or inappropriate in my original post that caused you to downvote the comment? I'll add a second question....Why does that question make you apparently so angry and disrespectful? There was obviously something you found worthy of all this angst, but you still have not said what it was. PLEASE be clear and succinct if you care to answer.

It looks like the truck was at fault to me - but that car was traveling hard so idk. I like how the truck driver is literally a passenger after the impact because he neglected to wear a seat belt. Bravo.

That's why I couldn't upvote this video, but I neglected to state it.

" At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes."

Per year. You don't cite your source, but this is looks to me to be an underestimate. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey there are half about half a million people claiming to be victim of a gun related crime over the course of a year. I remember being a victim of a gun crime in America (the perp was an British-born and educated woman) where the police said that they weren't going to follow things up because they were too busy with more serious crimes and they weren't confident of successful prosecution, they didn't even bother to look at the bullets or interview the perpetrator. I'd be surprised if it was even officially reported for crime statistic purposes.

"So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least."

You didn't discuss the confounding variables.

But nevertheless, nobody is saying that owning guns makes you intrinsically more criminal. The argument here seems to be that criminals or those with criminal intent will find it much easier to acquire firearms when there are hundreds of millions of them distributed in various degrees of security across the US.

And those that have firearms, who are basically normal and moral people, may find themselves in a situation where their firearm is used, even in error, and causes harm - a situation obviously avoided in the absence of firearms and something that isn't necessarily included in crime statistics.

"In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home"

Yes, but here's a fun fact. I've been burgled a few times, all but one of those times I was at home when it happened. You know what the burglar was armed with? Nothing. Do you know what happened when I confronted him with a wooden weapon? He pretended he knew someone that lived there and when that fell through he ran away. When the police apprehended him, there wasn't any consideration that he might be armed with a gun and the police merely put handcuffs on him and he walked to the police car. He swore and made some idle and non-specific threats, according to the police, but that's it. In any event, this isn't extraordinary. There are still too many burglaries that do involve violence, of course.
Many burglaries in Britain are actually vehicle crimes, with opportunity thrown in. That is: The primary purpose of the burglary is to acquire car keys (this is often the easiest way to steal modern vehicles), but they may grab whatever else is valuable and easy too.

"The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings."

What impact did it have on gun prevalence? Not really enough to stop the sentence 'guns are prevalent in the US' from being true....

" So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed."

I missed the part where you provided the reasoning that connects your evidence to this conclusion.

"Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. "

This is silly. Guns don't get manufactured and then 32% of them get stolen from the manufacturers warehouse. They get bought and some get subsequently stolen. If there were less guns made and sold there would be less guns available for felons to acquire them privately, less places to steal them or buy stolen ones on the black market, less opportunity for renting or purchasing from a retailer. Thus - less felons with guns.

If times got tough, and I thought robbing a convenience store was a way out of a situation I was in - I would not be able to acquire a firearm without putting myself in considerable danger that outweighs the benefits to the degree that pretending to have a gun is a better strategy. I have 'black market contacts' so I might be able to work my way to someone with a gun, but I really don't want to get into business with someone that deals guns because they are near universally bad news.

" states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate."

Almost all States have such laws, making the comparison pretty meaningless.

"In fact, it's {number of mass shootings} declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. "

I think 'most dead in one incident' is a poor measure. I think total dead over a reasonable time period is probably better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_School_massacres
The UK appears once. It is approx. 1/5 the population of the US. The US manages to have five incidents in the top 10.

Statistics can be fun, though, huh?

" In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens"

You've done a lot of hard work to show that most gun owners are law-abiding and non-violent. As such, the police won't go door to door, citizens will go to the police.

"How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns?"

The same way they remove contraband from other recalcitrants. I expect most of them will ask, demand, threaten and then use force - but as usual there will be examples where it won't be pretty.

"Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns?"

That's how it typically goes down here in the UK, yes.

"Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else?"

The military has had access to weapons the citizenry is not permitted to for some considerable time. Banning most handguns etc., would just be adding to the list.

"Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?"

No, but on the other hand, can the same unreliable, dishonest, immoral and unvirtuous government ensure that allowing general access to firearms will go exactly as planned?

You see, you talk the talk of sociological examination, but you seem to have neglected any form of critical reflection.

"From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary

"From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary"

On the other hand, I've been mugged erm, 6 times? I've been violently assaulted without attempts to rob another half dozen or so. I don't tend to hang around in the sorts of places middle class WASPs would loiter, shall we say. I'm glad most of the people that cross my path are not armed, and have little to no idea how to get a gun.

You don't source this assertion as far as I saw - but you'll have to do better than 'it's interesting' in your analysis, I'm afraid.

No formatting, because too much typing already.

Classified as common carriers and de-coupled from content production/sales.

If they remove the providing of access to internet from the same businesses trying to push their own content....we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Even as common carriers if they are still selling content, it's quite easy for them to just avoid upgrading their backbones and infrastructure AS THEY HAVE BEEN FOR YEARS to give false priority to their own content through purposeful neglect.


I really haven't seen this aspect discussed...just them making companies pay to not have their particular offerings throttled. Which is just a natural evolution of having both the delivery means and major content production under the same roof.



It'd be similar to having a major trucking company or two own all the roads and couple major manufacturers. Once they block anyone else from access to those roads or creating new ones.... They will only be interested in repairing and expanding the roads where the most profitable business is done........... And no one can do a damn thing about it because they have monopolies and basically what amounts to non-compete agreements everywhere with no minimal level of service. The only way in this circumstance to really drive down their prices and create real competition is if teleportation of goods became available and you could bypass their strangle hold on roads. Which in this case........would be wireless and satellite......which........they own too.



So when it comes to internet speeds....the only reason for them to upgrade it for the common man is if the content they sell is becoming too slow for people to consider.


That's how I see it anyway....they really aren't competing with other internet providers in the vast majority of the market...because there's only 1-2 in most.....and they sell content. They view themselves as content delivery businesses, not high speed internet providers.

I feel bad for the kid and the dog because it's obviously neglected. However it made my day seeing a cat so defensive over its property. I would love to see an F1 Savanah go to town on an attacking dog. Seriously, I think modern breeding is going to create some awesome home defense cats.

"And in this case, Feminism is responsible for holding back very important science."

Um no it's not, you haven't proved that, you've just stated what some unnamed "Feminist" might or might not believe.

Most feminists I've seen don't argue that men and women are the same, but that women should be treated more equally in areas of freedom of control of their own bodies. How much they get paid for doing the same amount of work as a man. Or, shockingly, how rapes should be dealt with such as not ignoring them.

"As far as I'm concerned, this is a head shot against the modern politics of science and the feminist control of academia."

Well then it must not take very much to convince you of anything if you want to believe it.

Maybe they've been busy researching OTHER things, medical science has advanced a crazy amount in our lifetimes, in just the past 10 years it's leaped forward. There's many avenues that we can study, only so much funding that can be made available for those studies. It's not shocking in that environment of a constantly growing field that some areas would be neglected. It's not necessarily because of Feminism and to claim that without a lot of evidence is just ignorant.

I would like to introduce you to the Streetlight Effect. Science has to jump forward before we can even begin to ask the right questions to get the answers we really seek. It's even more restricted when you think of what funding you have available to spend money on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect

60 Minutes here has created a topic of discussion they have not made a compelling argument that can be taken seriously. Which makes sense, this is a television show and it requires concision and isn't going to spend the full time on this subject. I think it does a disservice though to take this blurb and not add to it, instead cite it as a source of proof and not add your own evidence to further the argument. This is limp ammo for ignorant people to use, this is a conversation starter, not a "head shot" that you want it to be.

I mean it should've been fucking obvious when they use feminist speeches clips from the 60s to try to make their point that Feminism has held back research.

Speaking from my own experience, so skip if you need facts..

Depends on a cat but the ones that are brought up in an environment where it hasn't suffer any major traumas (note, i don't mean neglect or abuse, even a cat living in best possible conditions can get in accidents that change their behavior) tend to inspect everything new as priority one. Basically, if it's not with kittens, it's gonna check any new things or people as soon as possible. The difference how dogs behave is dramatic, they tend to keep owners as reference. Cats don't do that and it's all about pack mentality.

When the cat is rescued or had a accident, they tend to associate owners as more of a mother figure and sometimes are almost incapable to handle separation. I've had a few cats as guests and for healthy cat it's few seconds to touch, few minutes before it sits on your lap and few hours before it trusts you to pick it up. Even in the worst cases by day four you are among the humans it trust but it might require some trust building exercises.. (One that does the trick well is if the cat sits in owners lap, stranger sits beside the owner, humans interact normally, in calm voice, no sudden movements and don't take notice of the cat, sometimes for hours. Every time it's inborn curiosity wins.

Funnily, i haven't had the same effect with food which is in contrast on this study. "Healthy" cats pick up really really fast who hands out the sustenance and can ditch the owner in a heartbeat for a good meal.... If the stranger has softer lap, that's where the darn thing heads. Cat just chooses very simply the best available option and needs to be aware of all options so it's curious. I kind a like that quest for efficiency. A lot of signs of empathy are actually cat trying to do what it can so that it's owner returns to normality; you cry, it comes rubbing on you. Not because of love but simply "won't you shut the f#¤% up".

But i've seen cats with their owners and they sure do love them. It' just that cats love is inclusive rather than exclusive.

@artician- You are correct in your observations the reason being....currently a recent victim of two HPD officers willing to perjure themselves before a jury in order to satisfy their egos and their state mandate to fill beds in their jails (or prison, had we decided not to take a plea down to keep them from sealing our fate).
Felony obstruction for mouthing-off in the back of a cop car to a couple of complete douchebags who could not stand that we would not let them treat us like some kid a couple of jocks would have bullied in junior high.

The official statement was alleged that their lives had been threatened which when in fact we surmised in colorful detail their mommy and daddy issues, their obvious history of abuse and or neglect, questioning their sexuality and manhood simultaneously, all while we voluntarily accompanied them into said car in cuffs from a girl's apartment after we gave them the benefit of the doubt and rendered I.D. to them and TOLD them we had a warrant for an unpaid traffic ticket.

Was in the home of a friend when her ADT system (installed a day earlier) sent a false alarm-They had tried to call her but she was passed-out with an I.V. in her arm (vitamin treatment) bed-ridden with a torn ligament. Cops came to the door, was just waking-up and (stupidly) let them in and addressed their incivility when they after determining that the alarm call was false, began to ask me what my "problem" was-Asked them why they had to act like a couple of uncivil douchebags in someone's home and asked politely if the one cop, would remove his dark sunglasses and that they were making me nervous.

This is Texas BTW, land of the most redneck fucks to be found anywhere in the planet of police.

Meet an an idiot who poked the rabid dogs with a stick and found soon that we had over-stepped our "freedom of speech."

Yeah, fucking pissed and for good reason. It's called a felony what they did, and with full-participation of the D.A. and the judge.

Ten years ago this would not have happened. we know because we have spoken our mind to arresting cunts before, as well as spoken like a gentleman to those treating us with the same consideration who represented the local constabulary.

All cops are or will be felons during the course for their tenure as a "peace officer', in the United States.

Now we must jump though many, many hoops to fulfill probation obligations, pay money we don't have, and if I make it through, will be able to have the case sealed, so that we might work again in this state without having a felony (never before) on our permanent record.

So this is Canada?? Your time is coming as well, just look at the show-out when the damn G-20 came to Canada a few years back.

They're gearing-up for chaos folks-
(collective object-pronoun used to avoid incrimination) If you are interested, we'll tell you why in a P.M. It's kind of hard not to be incensed while being kicked while prone.

Been bullied by cunts just like this on the sift before and those petty cowards are afraid to even show their asses here any longer.

Ideology and Insanity are not mutually dependent.

You can have :
Sane Ideology
Insane Ideology
Sane non-Ideology
Insane non-Ideology

The principles of an individual can be constructive or destructive, whether or not they are part of an ideology.
What matters is the specific principles, and not whether or not they are associated with an ideology.

As individuals, we have animal impulses.
These include :
- Feeling combative in the presence of a verbal threat or insult.
- Feeling combative (inclined to silence/sensor) in the presence of ideas that are at odds with one's own.
- Feeling impulse to take shortcuts to reward (eg. stealing money fast vs earning money slow).

Ideology helps to fix these things.
This includes :
- Personal feelings don't take precedence over other people's physical condition.
Words are only words, actions are what makes a tangible measurable difference. We are masters of our own emotions, only ourselves can be blamed for our happiness or malcontent.

- Inherent equality of individuals. Ideas out in the open can live or die by their own merit as determined by all people. Censoring is taking privilege over other people by predetermining for them what ideas they are allowed to consider.

- Respect for domain. Doing as we like with what is ours, and not affecting what belongs to others.


"The moon does not care" (TM).
Nothing is intrinsically universal.

There are worldly concepts native to life on earth (protecting one's children, guarding one's domain, suffering/pain response, etc), but the higher order concept of "Idea X is _unacceptable_" is a purely human invented "meta" issue.



Sanity is Rationality is Logic ... which in turn is the ability to find a path from state A to state B.

For example:
[Given A=alive]
If your desire is to survive (B=alive), then eating poison is illogical.
It would be insane then to eat poison, as it would not be a path from A to B.
But if your desire is to die (B=dead), then eating poison is logical.
It would be sane to eat poison, as it would be a path from A to B.

Point being, people like to view the world with their own goals in mind.
Given that other people invariably have different goals in mind, the judgment of sane or insane becomes relative ... that's not "just words", that's quite real.
If a miserable person with a painful disease eats poison, is it logical for a healthy happy individual to say "that's insane"?



Much of our body politic is the projection of a subset of people's standards onto a larger population, with disregard for the other people.

At this point, politically, we are mired in populism, and we lack ideology - even though we were handed a pretty good one at the beginning.

Instead of having some guiding concepts that we use to restrain emotional impulses, we [as a society] fly off chasing populist agendas fed to us by our "team" (party) of choice.

Ironically, often rooting for a position that we are at odds with. (eg. "I hate the Affordable Care Act" even though "I like having coverage for pre-existing conditions")

The constitution does a good job at laying down the rules for an equitable relationship between government and people, but it's practically a dead document these days.
Elected officials neglect their obligation to represent and instead fashion themselves as leaders.
Lawmakers pass laws in violation of the constitution day in and day out.
Judiciary enforces lower laws that are constitutionally null.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness aren't just words. They're text from the highest law of the land.
Under such a standard, you would think that it would mean that a person would be able to lead their personal life as they please. But not as it stands.

Most of our public debate, is about whether or not people should "allow" other people to do things with themselves or other consenting individuals.
"Allowing(y/n)" people to do drugs [while not harming others].
"Allowing(y/n)" people to have firearms [while not harming others].
"Allowing(y/n)" people to marry [while not involving others].
etc.

With the main objections being "I'm not physically involved, but I wouldn't do things that way if it were me, so I choose to have hurt feelings (and call that a personal involvement), and subsequently push my personal standards onto others".
It's a selfish, impulsive, capricious, predatory behavior ... lacking any meaningful ideological temperance.

-scheherazade