@shinyblurry
@newtboy has offered you his reasoning on the "whys" and he is not the first who has pointed this out to you.
his criticism does not come off as an attack on you at all but rather a fair assessment on how you interact in discussions here on the sift and i have seen many others (including myself) who have offered the same criticism.
@bareboards2 alluded to this very practice right here on this thread.

so while i will defend your right to be here and say what you need to say and ask empathy from others who may interact with you,i cannot understand your logic in posting walls of text peppered with biblical verses.
you acknowledge the fact this is a secular site yet continue to post scripture to people who have no interest in said scripture.

you cannot force people to give scripture the validity that you give it.

so you really cant blame people for tuning you out when you quote-mine,deflect,contradict and go verse crazy.

if you are trying to reach people then speak to them as people.but stop using the very vehicle they hold zero belief in,thats just a waste of time.

disagreements are fun but repetition is boring.you cant ask for a certain amount of patience and understanding and then not give it in return.

>> ^longde:

She disobeyed her parents, and got an asswhuppin'.
End of story.
I know some of you don't ascribe to corporal punishment, but it's none of your business how parents choose to discipline their kids in their homes. None.


This is not true. Legally, it IS our business - and both of our obligations - to report him to child protective services. How does what is depicted in the video NOT come off as abuse?

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.261.htm

@NetRunner

I am a little confuzled about calling @Skeeve and my conversation both true and a non sequitur. I guess because I am addressing a more theoretical, man kind building question and you a more practical one. Your talking about the more practical, of making things work now, I am talking more about how I want things to work, for always. A the difference between the tangible and the ideal I guess.

The examples you pose are actually the exact ones I was thinking of when I think of the brutality of democratic things, at times. I have been considering the statement "the needs of the many..." for the course of a few weeks now. Forgive me, about to go on a tangent, but I want a trial by fire to so speak if you have the time. This will be a wall of text for the uninterested.

When I was first exposed to this phrase/idea, it was from Spock. And from then on, I always took it as the rational position one has to take to help the whole at the cost of the one. It was a profound idea in my youth. It had such a charity to it. It seemed to speak to the core of what is good. Everything that is good about man was contained in that one simple phrase. The devil is in the details, though, so I decided recently to examine my long held Vulcan heritage.

Over the past couple of years, since my fall from Grace, I have been increasingly interested in the role of evolution in the social development of our species. We have a lot in common with our animal kin, especially the social nature of mammalia. The role of emotions and intuitive social orders with post rationalized rule set changes are the order of our creed. For an animal that has a very long gestation period, few offspring per litter, and long maturation periods, certain social orders HAD to be developed or we wouldn't survive. Many of our longest held evolutionary advances aren't because they are "good" morally, but are good for survival when being chased by tigers. In that, I think the democratic pricible is actually as old as social creatures, and even more basic, as force.

I think the reason Spock's words stung so true in my heart of hearts is it spoke to millions of years of culture beyond my ability to fully comprehend. It spoke past my reason to the core of my being. Now, when I examine the phrase "the needs of the many..." and take into light the core being, I find a much different sentence. Let me tell you what I found that I didn't expect.

I find that the statement of "the needs of the many..." very closely relates to the Democratic position. When your tribe is 20 people, and the fate of your people all hang in the balance of routine decisions, evolutionary speaking, to survive, it is easier to remove the rational component of this choice. The rational implications of every choice you make determining the fate of your entire race is a burden that doesn't aid in decision making. It is much "better" to program in an emotional response and have that being post-rationalize later, intelligence is actually more of a burden than a tool in this area. This way, we remove the impotence one might face in the light of such a larger than life issue, and set in that mind a continuing sequence of emotional ties to the event through post-rationalizations.

I think the reason Democracy works so well, given this situation, is it very closely mimics the "rules of the jungle." By that, I mean force. Democracy is an interesting formalization of the rules of the jungle. Instead of the force being a stick or a knife, it is a vote. We might not consider our vote a weapon, but essentially, when you boil it down it is our most trusted language. So much so, that every animal we face understands it. We have subjugated nearly every animal on this planet via force, and now try our hands at the very planet itself. All the while, we never asked ourselves the question, is using force right?

When being chased by a tiger, you can't ask that question. Even more so, it is the application of force that seems to drive the evolution on this planet forward. However, it only advances the flags in the due course of force. Any being that comes after HAS to play by these rules or be defeated before it can flourish. But is this the way it HAS to be? Does humanity find itself on the precipice of being able to change the entire course of evolution on the planet? Perhaps so. Slowly, we have taken the cunning, and brutal wolfs of the winter lands to being the noblest of companions. And cats, wait, never mind, fuck cats.

Humans might soon, within perhaps our children's, children's lifetime, find themselves in the unique position to change the rules of the game, for good. Weather or not we want to will be the only question. So the question is, why? What is so wrong with Democracy and the underlying shreds of managed force something to be concerned about? Let me bring on my final point.

The course of discovery seems to be without end for man. It seems inevitable, that in time, each human will have access to such a level of technology that any one person could end all life on the planet with little to no effort. Our only current solutions for it are that of liberty, which would only take one crazy person to end it all, or regulations, of which would have to be of the most extreme kind to protect against knowledge that is easy to acquire and use. It seems that the current rules that bind this planet along with mans advancement in technology have set us on a collision course with a cruel destiny. While not a certainty, I do believe it is certain that the tools of Democratic force will not save us from our own self imposed destruction.

While I have still not made all my points, like why I also think the democratic position is actually bad (perhaps even morally bad); in spite of that, I do suppose that it is insufficient to manage our path. It isn't that I want it to be wrong, it is that we truly need something else if we intend to survive past an infant species. If we lose the game, the cycle of force will most likely continue on without us, spawning forth new entities of force. But if we win, we will rewrite the rules for all existence on the planet. No longer bound to rules that keep up from being eaten by tigers, but by rules that extend us to the furthest reaches of our dreams.

I think it will all start by eating all the cats, because anything that will bite you in your sleep isn't fit in this new world. And I yield my time back to an audience that is most likely not interested in my thought processes that go to solving less than practical problems. I will only continue on request as to not come off as pedantic, well, more so.


edit, grammar

Tags for this video have been changed from 'shampoo, not coming off, aaaaargh' to 'shampoo, not goiiing, not coming off, aaaaargh' - edited by calvados

Beat me by 30 minutes! >.<
Reeks of me-too-ism but wins out for not coming off ostentatiously repugnant.

while I'm compelled to upvote because of the effort that's been put into this and both previous videos, I'd say that, first of all, she absolutely HAD to wear keds in this (two reasons - her bare feet look small and kinda weird + she'd had more friction on that slippery surface), and second - this is just not as good as the first one. it's partly due to the song choice (I certainly preferred Daft Punk), but it just looks totally random and far less choreographed than the first one did. oh, yeah, and the gigantic hat was totally useless, just interfered with upper body movements and she had to check occasionally whether it's not coming off.

also, is it just me, or does she not look abnormally thin? I mean, thinner than she should, compared to the previous ones? I'd not put it past them to also modify the aspect ratio. just another thing that bugs me about this one.

Are you guys f**king serious? You think it's OK to end somebody's life over a physical object, owned by the killer, and taken by the victim? ..

There are only two reasons people get killed during a home invasion. Either they confront the invader, with a weapon of some kind, or the invader has nothing to loose since he's already risking his life. (Due to the society and gun-acceptance)

Here in Norway, the police don't carry guns. They have them in the car, locked away, for use if needed. This means that the criminals don't really use guns either.. Of course there are gun-robberies, murders, etc. BUT in the big picture, it's a different world.
The way gun-enthusiasts go off on a tear when we discuss gun-politics, is as if the gun itself was their manhood. The reason guns are constitutionalized in
USA is only because off the founding fathers saw a possibility where the people would have to fight the government. I don't say this doesn't apply today, but not in the same way.. That would only work if both sides had muskets.. But that's not the reality anymore..

Another problem I see is that If you have a gun, the likelihood of a bad guy shooting after you / back at you is a million times greater, than if your hands are up, and you're not coming off as threatening. I can't see how people can't understand that..
And further more, it's only property.. I got my car stolen once, but I didn't want to kill the guy, nor have anybody else kill him!

Gah.. Guns kill people.. People kill people.. There shouldn't be a "not" in there.

Is it the importance to protect yourself, or is it just really fun to play with? What if your three-year old plays with it.. Will it be just as fun?

-seltar

I'm sorry to be skeptical, but what evidence do you have that our economy will "collapse under its debt?" Also, didn't the murder of Theo van Gogh serve to show you that you didn't have quite the level of multi-cultural tolerance you thought you did?

In other words, I'm wondering why you think that particular murder was a **cause** of declining tolerance, rather than the **result** of declining tolerance?

I hope I'm not coming off as confrontational here. I'm just trying to understand your perspective, and learn a bit more about the Netherlands.

Just my opinion, but I think "Night Watch" failed to impress you for two main reasons:

- the production was big-budget enough for you to subconsciously feel it was on the same level as something like "The Matrix" (the trailers certainly made it appear so), but it had "corny" bits that didn't come off right because of our "filter" of what makes a good sci-fi movie

- the subtitles were awful, and the sentiments of the book in its native language did not come off right; Russian is not an easy language to translate when it comes to emotions, art, philosophy, etc.

- third bonus reason: they're still learning how to make movies that appeal to western audiences in Russia (but they're well on their way IMHO); this was really the first "big-budget" film there, and all the standard "Hollywood" pitfalls apply

good comments. agreed that Iraq Body Count methods may be more appropriate at this time.

Bush's dismissive remark is classic supervillain. One would imagine the President of the United States to be a bit more interested in not coming off as evil.

Well Theo, at least Choggie knows he's crazy, QM is just delusional.

I love his arguments against Obama... hard finding something to say that would not come off blantanly racist again so you pick on the man's ears? And Ted Kennedy? Weak!

Shit I think your Grand Master Rush Limbaugh and FNC just can't muster good enough arguements for you anymore!

while millions do survive on a vegatarian diet, it is easier for our bodies to process certain nutrients out of meat than it is out of plants. That is, however, besides the point.

This video did not come off as 'don't eat meat,' it was a review of a specific industry, that of fast food. The solution is actually quite simple: eat better than McDonalds.