this cat i was watching after it got treated at the vet, had a victorian collar, and passed out from the medication with its head in the bowl.... i thought it was still eating so i petted it and it woke up and ran all around like a maniac until it passed out again drooling... i wiped that drool and talked it through the trip... it wouldnt blink for hours, i had to pet its nose to make it blink.

the end!

oh yea i took a video, i called it "sophie as david from the dentist". i cut the collar down significantly but this was right after getting home and before that.

/me passes out too.

Just drink enough until you pass out, no magic, just lots and lots of alcohol.

Doubt that they saved anything at that point, the engine needs a repair at this stage.. Al the gaskets are burned, by the sound of it oil distributing system is shut, would be surprised if it starts again..

@Hive13 I'm kind of hoping that you're joking, because seriously, her drinking is not at issue here, the assault isn't even really at issue here, at issue here was someone (the defense lawyers, and the wording of the ruling out of the Jefferson District Court) of trying to tell the victim of sexual assault that she shouldn't talk about it. There's enough silencing happening around the issue of sexual assault without giving it the sanction of law.

If you want to talk about the assault, I think it should be fairly obvious that you can't give consent while unconscious (the sources I've read say that the assault happened after she passed out). If someone is too wasted to know what's up, then consent cannot be given, and the other partner would have to be really messed up to think that sort of behavior was OK. She didn't place the boys in that position, the boys did that to themselves - by assaulting her and taking pictures.

Slagging on this particular teen for doing something that is extremely common looks like an attempt to shame the victim. If you want to go moan about drinking at parties, find a different conversation -- here's one
http://videosift.com/video/Drinking-Culture-David-Mitchell-s-Soapbox

It's these sort of attacks on character that help a tiny number of men get away with a large number of sexual assaults, because their victims don't come forward (because of fear of being ostracized), aren't believed (you were drunk), or aren't prosecuted (it's just boys being assholes).

*Passes Out*

I just read this article this morning...then I read your comment and remembered you're a psych guy, right? You seem to be on the psych kick as of late, are you finishing up a masters or PhD by any chance?



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=redefining-mental-illness
In reply to this comment by berticus:
The sad, cold truth of things is that there are some severely autistic children who engage in the most horrific self-injurious behaviour, and aversive punishment is the ONLY treatment (in conjunction with a broader treatment plan, naturally) that works. And yes, it DOES work.

I'm not talking about kids with minor problems. I mean the ones who will do things like smash their own face into the ground over and over until they lose so much blood they pass out. The ones who will, left to themselves, die.

Positive punishment is horrible. But, it's either that, or let these kids maim or kill themselves (or possibly others) through their behaviour.

(I make no comment regarding this specific incident, I just want you to know the issue is far more complicated than this mind-bite would have you believe.)

I don't know what your background is (?), but my colleagues and I have no trouble understanding what "aversive punishment" means. No incoherence, no confusion. It's one part of behaviourist principles that are taught in undergraduate psychology. It is often referred to as positive punishment.

Would you care to cite the relevant evidence that shows the effects are vanishingly small? Because punishment, from everything I have learned, is an excellent means of behaviour control -- it just has many drawbacks, which is why reinforcement is the preferred alternative. The problem is that there are severe cases where nothing else works. What then do you do?

Reductions in social skills, communication skills, and cognitive ability are all possible outcomes. However, every one of those will depend on the punisher used, its properties, the behaviour in question, and a large variety of other factors. Your brush paints thickly.

I'm not sure what to make of your last paragraph. It reeks of ad-hom.

>> ^RhesusMonk:

"Aversive punishment" is not a coherent term in the realm of emotional/behavioral psychology. What's more, the practice to which this term seems to refer has vanishingly small effect on "self-injurious" behavior (which is actually called self-stimulating behavior). What effects it may have are significantly offset by the reduction in social and communications skills, and a decrease in cognitive ability. These reasons are why, when aversive conditioning is used in the developmental setting, it is as a last resort and the aversive stimulus is sparing and lenient. In this case, the video and other evidence around the boy's condition and behavior are sparse, and any judgment whether this was the correct course of action based on the information we have is laughable. Great measures require great evidence in their justification.
In any event, cooling people off their outrage at authority who inflict barbaric emotional and physical pain in an effort to encourage compliance for its own sake with quasi-psychology based claims is sophomoric at best. There may be some intellectual satisfaction with the idea that some minds are so beyond reason that they only respond to pain of this kind, but that idea only smacks true when the thinker lacks the creativity necessary to actually manage these kinds of malfunctions. Seems Nurse Ratched would pass muster with at least some of our Sifters.

>> ^berticus:
The sad, cold truth of things is that there are some severely autistic children who engage in the most horrific self-injurious behaviour, and aversive punishment is the ONLY treatment (in conjunction with a broader treatment plan, naturally) that works. And yes, it DOES work.
I'm not talking about kids with minor problems. I mean the ones who will do things like smash their own face into the ground over and over until they lose so much blood they pass out. The ones who will, left to themselves, die.
Positive punishment is horrible. But, it's either that, or let these kids maim or kill themselves (or possibly others) through their behaviour.
(I make no comment regarding this specific incident, I just want you to know the issue is far more complicated than this mind-bite would have you believe.)

"Aversive punishment" is not a coherent term in the realm of emotional/behavioral psychology. What's more, the practice to which this term seems to refer has vanishingly small effect on "self-injurious" behavior (which is actually called self-stimulating behavior). What effects it may have are significantly offset by the reduction in social and communications skills, and a decrease in cognitive ability. These reasons are why, when aversive conditioning is used in the developmental setting, it is as a last resort and the aversive stimulus is sparing and lenient. In this case, the video and other evidence around the boy's condition and behavior are sparse, and any judgment whether this was the correct course of action based on the information we have is laughable. Great measures require great evidence in their justification.

In any event, cooling people off their outrage at authority who inflict barbaric emotional and physical pain in an effort to encourage compliance for its own sake with quasi-psychology based claims is sophomoric at best. There may be some intellectual satisfaction with the idea that some minds are so beyond reason that they only respond to pain of this kind, but that idea only smacks true when the thinker lacks the creativity necessary to actually manage these kinds of malfunctions. Seems Nurse Ratched would pass muster with at least some of our Sifters.


>> ^berticus:

The sad, cold truth of things is that there are some severely autistic children who engage in the most horrific self-injurious behaviour, and aversive punishment is the ONLY treatment (in conjunction with a broader treatment plan, naturally) that works. And yes, it DOES work.
I'm not talking about kids with minor problems. I mean the ones who will do things like smash their own face into the ground over and over until they lose so much blood they pass out. The ones who will, left to themselves, die.
Positive punishment is horrible. But, it's either that, or let these kids maim or kill themselves (or possibly others) through their behaviour.
(I make no comment regarding this specific incident, I just want you to know the issue is far more complicated than this mind-bite would have you believe.)

The sad, cold truth of things is that there are some severely autistic children who engage in the most horrific self-injurious behaviour, and aversive punishment is the ONLY treatment (in conjunction with a broader treatment plan, naturally) that works. And yes, it DOES work.

I'm not talking about kids with minor problems. I mean the ones who will do things like smash their own face into the ground over and over until they lose so much blood they pass out. The ones who will, left to themselves, die.

Positive punishment is horrible. But, it's either that, or let these kids maim or kill themselves (or possibly others) through their behaviour.

(I make no comment regarding this specific incident, I just want you to know the issue is far more complicated than this mind-bite would have you believe.)

I don't think they could make this go very fast. It would be very easy to make positive Gs become negative Gs. That's a good way to make a lot of people pass out.

I was drunk, so that may have something to do with it. Nothing like watching a movie with surround sound blaring at midnight then passing out. I'm sure my neighbors love me.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^rottenseed:
I enjoyed the opening sequence as well...and then I fell asleep.

It was a pretty good movie actually, they just kinda got things wrong.

>> ^silverpoint16:

I'm amazed that Dad didn't wake up with all the talking going on.


"Dad" is probably passed out drunk. And the cat just wants to be fed. This right here is the single most important reason I don't see myself getting a cat any time soon... I had a cat as a kid, loved that grumpy bastard to bits, and have considered myself a cat person ever since. Since then, however, having looked after friends' cats and having suffered the inevitable face-trampling at 7 am one time too many, I've concluded I like sleeping more than I do cats. The critters just like food too much!

Another thing is, it's easy enough having cats around if you're vegetarian, as the people I most recently cat-sat for are, but try eating meat around them... I prefer not having to fight a furry feline for my meals, thank you very much!

He does not look like he's enjoying that at all, he barely moves.....like he's just stunned or passed out for a long time there.

>> ^bobknight33:

Quit your raciest rants. Just the guy is non black does not give anyone a free pass out of jail.
You don't know what happened so keep you shit to yourself.
Maybe the guy though he had a gun I don't know, you don't know and we don't know. Time will tell.
Being 1/2 the size don't mean jack. An 8 year old with a gun is just as deadly as a 17 or 35 year old.
>> ^Drax:
>> ^bobknight33:
Both left and right smear facts when its convenient and both side are smearing this story for all its worth.
I don't think all the facts are in. I don't know who is right or wrong. All I know is that sadly there is a grieving family who lost their son.
Hopefully ideology won't get in the way of facts.

Yeah, it's certainly a fact that an unarmed teenage boy of his size needed to be shot in the chest with a gun in order to be dealt with.
So many in fact that there's no reason to detain the non-black person at all. Yeah.



If by gun you mean skittles. Shitbird.