Not real. This is from a comedy sketch.

Peter Hitchens makes a good point about Brand not being able to deal in anything other than generalities though... good will, benevolence, etc are attitudes not plans/strategies... and aren't easily tied to a dollar figure... which is what the CRUX of the debate is about... some people place more value on $, some on compassion


Peter Hitchens tries to feign compassion by saying if drug addiction affects one family of course they care... well, compassion isn't compassion if you limit it only to yourself or those that directly affect you... REAL compassion isn't delimited by whether or not you know the person in question or not... REAL compassion is self-less

when the jingle in your pockets affects your "compassionate" view... you don't have a very compassionate view in the first place ( i guarantee some blockhead will try to take this to an extreme, such as "then why don't you give up all your money to help those less fortunate than you" instead of realizing that's not then end of the spectrum where my arguement comes from... it actually comes from reality where people don't wanna have to give up luxury [as opposed to necessity] to help someone that they can just as easily ignore or vilify)

and while the comment earlier about incarceration in the US is "somewhat" on the mark, lets not forget that the US prison system exists as it is primarily because its a private, for profit, industry... which shapes drug policy (gotta have your customer base - i mean inmates)

criminalization has always had an impotent effect on controlling drugs... from prohibition to THE WAR ON DRUGS (and the resulting chaos one finds in Mexico because of it)

there are PLENTY of countries that currently use legalization/rehabilitation as a much better deterrent/control; but we don't want to talk about those... because someone is making money of keeping them illegal, and where'd the poor politicians get their kickbacks from then?

>> ^artician:

This is a bullshit viral for those stupid piece of shit cameras that I will never buy (and neither should you!)
Fuck "GoPro". Everytime I read that name in a video description or hear it uttered in some manufactured drama such as this, it's one less of their products I will ever buy. If I ever see them in the stores I'll probably break a few.
Advertising get's my dander up.


Yes, because if the emotions of the people don't feel like a good drama, it's not real. Most of the time honest reactions don't feel as real as the real thing.

>> ^bobknight33:

Unless you have young kids you have no room to talk. You don't have knowledge to make any judgement.
Parenting IS filtering out inappropriate material.
I'm talking when a 6 year old is clicking channels to get to his cartoon channel it at times comes across inappropriate material.
WRT to web serving same thing. The kid can be you You-tubing or sifting for kitty cat stuff and come across some wild stuff. Sure I don't want my 6 and 7 year seeing women and men rubbing up against each other or to watch some brutal gang violence event that some posted. What parent would? Some parents don't mind at all and that a darn shame. There are limits for kids and parenting filtering is a must.

I take responsibility for my kids upbringing. If other parents stepped up to the plate kids would have better moral compass.
When you have kids, revisit your post.
You don't seem to have high regard for the parenting skills from you mother. sorry to hear that.

>> ^VoodooV:
Instead of blaming television @bobknight33, the responsibility is still ultimately the parents. You don't have to be a parent to know that. Parents are not helpless to modern television. If you can't be bothered to educate your kids on the difference between made up television and reality, you don't get to blame television. My mom was a pretty horrible parent, but that is one of the first things I recall her ever teaching me. So since I'm actually armed with this thing called knowledge. I can watch any TV I wish and it's not damaging to me because IT'S NOT REAL!
It's the same thing with the teachers. Parents don't want to be the parents anymore, they want to be their pal. So when little billy doesn't do well on his test, who gets chewed out? Not little billy, that's for sure. Parents blame the teachers when they should be blaming themselves.
You can believe television and commercials are inappropriate all you want. Still doesn't absolve you from your responsibility. History has shown over and over again that when you try to hide shit from your kids, they always find it eventually. The more forcefully you dictate how bad something is, the more the kids want to do it just to spite you and rebel. So instead of trying to trick and coerce your kids into behaving, maybe you should actually try to educate them. If your "education" has any merit to it, then it will stick. Education beats coercion every time.
Parenting is not rocket science, it just takes effort, so you can get off your moral high horse. You've demonstrated time and time again you have no claim to any moral high ground, especially not any morality based off made up deities.



Once again, bob laughably attempts to claim moral superiority over everyone. Sorry, but you aren't magically granted wisdom the instant the kid pops out of the womb.

When you fail to educate your kids WHY things are inappropriate and just filter because "you said so" then you're not accomplishing anything. Authority without the actual facts to back it up fails EVERY time to kids with nothing better to do than to rebel. It's the hot stove analogy which you apparently failed to learn. Parents will tell you to not touch that hot stove. Kids disregard this and touch it anyway and are immediately introduced to the facts of WHY you shouldn't touch a hot stove and guess what..they never do it again.

If you told a kid to never touch a cold stove...because you said so. The kid eventually touches it and learns that nothing bad comes of it. Not only are they encouraged to rebel. Your authority is undermined and they learn that you're full of shit and continue to ignore you.

In other words, since bob probably hasn't been following. Moral authority means absolutely jack unless you have provable facts to back it up. When kids find out you're bullshitting them. Kids have this pesky thing called the ability to learn and the ability to detect bullshit. Telling them not to do something only because your imaginary friend up in the clouds told you so has a way of coming back to bite you in the ass when the imaginary friend in the clouds doesn't punish them because that imaginary friend doesn't exist.

Bob lives in the typical republican bubble where he deludes himself into believing he's the good parent and everyone else is lacking. What's it like being so self-centered bob?

And once again, Bob cherry picks what he wants to hear and disregards everything else. I praise my mom for teaching me that TV is make-believe and all bob chooses to hear is the negative part. You are utterly incapable of having a rational discussion bob. I've proven this time and time again. The sift is going to continue to beat you over the head with logic and rationality every time until hopefully you learn something.

Unless you have young kids you have no room to talk. You don't have knowledge to make any judgement.

Parenting IS filtering out inappropriate material.

I'm talking when a 6 year old is clicking channels to get to his cartoon channel it at times comes across inappropriate material.

WRT to web serving same thing. The kid can be you You-tubing or sifting for kitty cat stuff and come across some wild stuff. Sure I don't want my 6 and 7 year seeing women and men rubbing up against each other or to watch some brutal gang violence event that some posted. What parent would? Some parents don't mind at all and that a darn shame. There are limits for kids and parenting filtering is a must.


I take responsibility for my kids upbringing. If other parents stepped up to the plate kids would have better moral compass.

When you have kids, revisit your post.

You don't seem to have high regard for the parenting skills from you mother. sorry to hear that.



>> ^VoodooV:

Instead of blaming television @bobknight33, the responsibility is still ultimately the parents. You don't have to be a parent to know that. Parents are not helpless to modern television. If you can't be bothered to educate your kids on the difference between made up television and reality, you don't get to blame television. My mom was a pretty horrible parent, but that is one of the first things I recall her ever teaching me. So since I'm actually armed with this thing called knowledge. I can watch any TV I wish and it's not damaging to me because IT'S NOT REAL!
It's the same thing with the teachers. Parents don't want to be the parents anymore, they want to be their pal. So when little billy doesn't do well on his test, who gets chewed out? Not little billy, that's for sure. Parents blame the teachers when they should be blaming themselves.
You can believe television and commercials are inappropriate all you want. Still doesn't absolve you from your responsibility. History has shown over and over again that when you try to hide shit from your kids, they always find it eventually. The more forcefully you dictate how bad something is, the more the kids want to do it just to spite you and rebel. So instead of trying to trick and coerce your kids into behaving, maybe you should actually try to educate them. If your "education" has any merit to it, then it will stick. Education beats coercion every time.
Parenting is not rocket science, it just takes effort, so you can get off your moral high horse. You've demonstrated time and time again you have no claim to any moral high ground, especially not any morality based off made up deities.

Instead of blaming television @bobknight33, the responsibility is still ultimately the parents. You don't have to be a parent to know that. Parents are not helpless to modern television. If you can't be bothered to educate your kids on the difference between made up television and reality, you don't get to blame television. My mom was a pretty horrible parent, but that is one of the first things I recall her ever teaching me. So since I'm actually armed with this thing called knowledge. I can watch any TV I wish and it's not damaging to me because IT'S NOT REAL!

It's the same thing with the teachers. Parents don't want to be the parents anymore, they want to be their pal. So when little billy doesn't do well on his test, who gets chewed out? Not little billy, that's for sure. Parents blame the teachers when they should be blaming themselves.

You can believe television and commercials are inappropriate all you want. Still doesn't absolve you from your responsibility. History has shown over and over again that when you try to hide shit from your kids, they always find it eventually. The more forcefully you dictate how bad something is, the more the kids want to do it just to spite you and rebel. So instead of trying to trick and coerce your kids into behaving, maybe you should actually try to educate them. If your "education" has any merit to it, then it will stick. Education beats coercion every time.

Parenting is not rocket science, it just takes effort, so you can get off your moral high horse. You've demonstrated time and time again you have no claim to any moral high ground, especially not any morality based off made up deities.

@gwiz665 My point isn't that porn is bad and people who view it should feel bad about it. I really do have no issue with respectful porn in moderation. My issue is that if you do a search for porn these days, or go to youporn or anything like that, then 90% of the top stuff is just so derogatory towards women. Women gagging on dicks to the point of almost throwing up, women having their mouths pulled open, women drinking cum from glasses, bukakke, being held down and viscously rammed... this seems to be the norm now. The norm seems to be to treat women as objects. And damn those women better have big fake tits, a bald vagina, and be fine with ass to mouth.

My issue is that the porn is 'just there' now, and for single people, it'll get used a lot, and it DOES start shaping their tastes and expectations in regards to sex. The fact that sites like this even have a need to exist, shows that porn is shaping people's attitudes towards sex and women far more than it should be.

My wife and I do actually still occasionally watch porn together, carefully selected stuff that is not degrading, but just shows couples seemingly actually enjoying sex together. And as an occasional thing, it's great.

Trying to teach kids that porn is just movies and not real is just the same as movies really. Until their old enough to really process the difference between reality and make believe, until they get those critical thinking abilities, it doesn't matter how much you tell them that something isn't real. If they see it, it will affect them. So yes, I will definitely be teaching them about how the stuff in porn should never be looked on as a way to treat women (or be treated for my daughter), but I don't want them even seeing it until they're much older and can actually process it properly anyway.

Over sexualisation of our kids is a huge problem now. 3 year old girls being given high heel shoes for birthdays (as our daughter was, and we've promptly put them deep in the dress up basket), having 'role models' like Katy 'spit' Perry informing their self view. It's shit, and is not letting kids just be kids. And too many parents we see just go along with it. Let their 3 year olds dance and sing along to music videos showing women being treated as sex objects, and little more.

What this talk shows is that there is a physical effect of watching porn as much as people do now. You can put it down to weak will power, but when it's there at a click, whenever you want it, it's a problem. And it really is changing how people have sex. I've watched numerous talks where porn tropes like cumming on the woman's face, or ass to mouth, or any number of those things that only really make sense in the world of porn, are becoming things which men and women think are expected of them, or are the 'normal' way to have sex. That's a problem, because it's taking the focus away from two people getting hugely turned on and having great sex and being more like sex that looks good when being watched by someone else.

relax, it's not real chicken!

Your probably right I admit I am a bit ignorant of this particular sport, and after watching it again there wasn't any real time between when the ref. got there and when the ball hits them. So the ref. very may have been in the process of telling the guy to get up or get off the field. I guess I just got the impression the first time I watched it that the ref. was basically taking the guys word that he was injured and was fixing to issue a penalty. I could be wrong in this case though because not enough time elapsed for the ref. to even make a decision. Still my final word is like or not he was right the guy was obviously faking it. And the only fair call in my mind would have been to penalize them both for unsportsmanlike conduct.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Auger8:
I see your point and at the same time I don't yes I agree it's wrong to hurt people for no reason. Do I think one very slow air ball that barely tapped both guys hurt them, no. Do I think the ref. has any capacity to tell if someone is faking an injury, no. Do I agree with how Beckham handled the situation, no. Do I think this might open the eyes of a lot of people, refs. included who see players take glancing blows and suddenly cry whiplash knowing the other team will be penalized, I hope so. In the short time I played Football in junior high I quickly realized how corrupt these sports have become. We were taught to fake injury at the slightest touch if we thought we could get away with it and if the resulting penalty would help our team win the game. Bending the rules to win isn't good sportsmanship. Now neither is kicking balls at someone who's on the ground claiming to be hurt.
But tell me if you knew, I mean absolutely knew that the guy was faking it but knew the ref. wasn't going to listen to you, because either you were the supposed offender or just because you were on the opposing team. What would you do?
I might not exactly agree with Beckham's ultimate choice here to ferret out a rat. But ferret one out he certainly did and if it makes the refs. more careful when assessing injuries then the sport is better for it. I personally think the reason they didn't Red Card him was because the refs. knew they fucked up and knew they fucked up big time. If they Red Carded Beckham they would have had to do the same to the other player for feigning injury.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Auger8:
I could tell he kicked two balls at him in the video here not real clearly but I saw it.
My question is this: So you don't agree that the guy on the ground was intentionally faking an injury? A leg injury at that. He seemed to run just fined after Beckham. Beckham may be a douche but in this instance he was right. Like it or not.
>> ^Yogi:
By the way what this video doesn't show is that Beckham actually kicked TWO balls at Sam Cronin...only one was off target.
Beckham is such a Douchenozzle in the MLS it's embarrassing. He runs that league like it's his own private playground, constantly screaming at officials and telling them "Fuck You" to their faces over and over for nothing. I've lost whatever respect I've had for him since he's show'd what a cruel and insolent jackass he can be.
The MLS is a joke of a league for not dealing with him properly. For this the referee didn't give him a red card, when it clearly is. The league then suspended him for one game and fined him an undisclosed amount of probably $1000 which is pointless for Beckham. It's just nuts, American Football cannot grow with these shit people.


So you hit people when they're faking an injury? What are you 8? So what he was faking, it's up to the referee to get him up and add time, kicking balls at him and hitting him and the referee is a red card offense. It doesn't matter that he was faking an injury.
This is just like on Cops when the police are talking to a guy who just hit his wife "Yeah but she said..." It Doesn't Matter! You can't hit people!


Ok I'll preface this with saying I've been a soccer referee for the last 15 years. When I'm confronted by this situation I confront the individual and I get them up. If they don't want to get up I call on their coach and he has to leave the field, and his team plays short a man because of it (unless they want to sub which if he's faking probably not) and I add time if it's necessary. The players do nothing, they have no rights to grab him, pick him up, or tell me he's faking, it's my job to deal with the "injury," manage the clock and get the game going again.
So I don't know what you're saying about the officials knew the "fucked up" what in the world did they do wrong? He did exactly what he was supposed to. He went over to the player and told him to get to his feet, big deal get on with the game. Beckham is causing problems that makes the referees job harder cause now their could be a serious altercation after the match, possibly with serious consequences.

I see your point and at the same time I don't yes I agree it's wrong to hurt people for no reason. Do I think one very slow air ball that barely tapped both guys hurt them, no. Do I think the ref. has any capacity to tell if someone is faking an injury, no. Do I agree with how Beckham handled the situation, no. Do I think this might open the eyes of a lot of people, refs. included who see players take glancing blows and suddenly cry whiplash knowing the other team will be penalized, I hope so. In the short time I played Football in junior high I quickly realized how corrupt these sports have become. We were taught to fake injury at the slightest touch if we thought we could get away with it and if the resulting penalty would help our team win the game. Bending the rules to win isn't good sportsmanship. Now neither is kicking balls at someone who's on the ground claiming to be hurt.

But tell me if you knew, I mean absolutely knew that the guy was faking it but knew the ref. wasn't going to listen to you, because either you were the supposed offender or just because you were on the opposing team. What would you do?

I might not exactly agree with Beckham's ultimate choice here to ferret out a rat. But ferret one out he certainly did and if it makes the refs. more careful when assessing injuries then the sport is better for it. I personally think the reason they didn't Red Card him was because the refs. knew they fucked up and knew they fucked up big time. If they Red Carded Beckham they would have had to do the same to the other player for feigning injury.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Auger8:
I could tell he kicked two balls at him in the video here not real clearly but I saw it.
My question is this: So you don't agree that the guy on the ground was intentionally faking an injury? A leg injury at that. He seemed to run just fined after Beckham. Beckham may be a douche but in this instance he was right. Like it or not.
>> ^Yogi:
By the way what this video doesn't show is that Beckham actually kicked TWO balls at Sam Cronin...only one was off target.
Beckham is such a Douchenozzle in the MLS it's embarrassing. He runs that league like it's his own private playground, constantly screaming at officials and telling them "Fuck You" to their faces over and over for nothing. I've lost whatever respect I've had for him since he's show'd what a cruel and insolent jackass he can be.
The MLS is a joke of a league for not dealing with him properly. For this the referee didn't give him a red card, when it clearly is. The league then suspended him for one game and fined him an undisclosed amount of probably $1000 which is pointless for Beckham. It's just nuts, American Football cannot grow with these shit people.


So you hit people when they're faking an injury? What are you 8? So what he was faking, it's up to the referee to get him up and add time, kicking balls at him and hitting him and the referee is a red card offense. It doesn't matter that he was faking an injury.
This is just like on Cops when the police are talking to a guy who just hit his wife "Yeah but she said..." It Doesn't Matter! You can't hit people!

>> ^Auger8:

I could tell he kicked two balls at him in the video here not real clearly but I saw it.
My question is this: So you don't agree that the guy on the ground was intentionally faking an injury? A leg injury at that. He seemed to run just fined after Beckham. Beckham may be a douche but in this instance he was right. Like it or not.
>> ^Yogi:
By the way what this video doesn't show is that Beckham actually kicked TWO balls at Sam Cronin...only one was off target.
Beckham is such a Douchenozzle in the MLS it's embarrassing. He runs that league like it's his own private playground, constantly screaming at officials and telling them "Fuck You" to their faces over and over for nothing. I've lost whatever respect I've had for him since he's show'd what a cruel and insolent jackass he can be.
The MLS is a joke of a league for not dealing with him properly. For this the referee didn't give him a red card, when it clearly is. The league then suspended him for one game and fined him an undisclosed amount of probably $1000 which is pointless for Beckham. It's just nuts, American Football cannot grow with these shit people.



So you hit people when they're faking an injury? What are you 8? So what he was faking, it's up to the referee to get him up and add time, kicking balls at him and hitting him and the referee is a red card offense. It doesn't matter that he was faking an injury.

This is just like on Cops when the police are talking to a guy who just hit his wife "Yeah but she said..." It Doesn't Matter! You can't hit people!

I'd like to add that in the EPL, Rooney one of the biggest players there threw the ball towards a referee, didn't even hit him and got a red card immediately. Brek Shea a player for FC Dallas in the MLS earlier in the year kicked a ball at a ref and got 3 games...Beckham got banned 1 extra game, that's bullshit.

I could tell he kicked two balls at him in the video here not real clearly but I saw it.

My question is this: So you don't agree that the guy on the ground was intentionally faking an injury? A leg injury at that. He seemed to run just fined after Beckham. Beckham may be a douche but in this instance he was right. Like it or not.

>> ^Yogi:

By the way what this video doesn't show is that Beckham actually kicked TWO balls at Sam Cronin...only one was off target.
Beckham is such a Douchenozzle in the MLS it's embarrassing. He runs that league like it's his own private playground, constantly screaming at officials and telling them "Fuck You" to their faces over and over for nothing. I've lost whatever respect I've had for him since he's show'd what a cruel and insolent jackass he can be.
The MLS is a joke of a league for not dealing with him properly. For this the referee didn't give him a red card, when it clearly is. The league then suspended him for one game and fined him an undisclosed amount of probably $1000 which is pointless for Beckham. It's just nuts, American Football cannot grow with these shit people.

>> ^Sagemind:

This is fake, right????
Tell me this is not real....


Hehehe, it's not real

This is fake, right????
Tell me this is not real....