I copied my response from another discussion, some reasons to own firearms.

Yes firearms were designed for military use, but for us to cover everything we use in our lives that started out or were improved by the military (essentially to make it easier to kill the enemy) would require more effort and space than is practical in an Internet disscussion.

J) The legitimate use of firearms.
The big Taboo, Killing:
The military uses firearms, and other tools to kill the enemy. This enemy is defined by the state who are elected officials. I won't go into depth as to why, as that is best served by a political debate. Suffice it to say that guns could be perceived to actually combat evil.

Hunting: another form of killing, however for most, the game is hunted as a food source. The only distinction I make between wild game, and beef in the store is who does the killing ( and I could use a uphenism for the word kill, but let's call a a spade a spade )(also keep in mind hunters are the leaders in protecting the ecology, ducks unlimmited was and is a group of hunters)

Defense: when another human desires you harm what recourse do you have? You can try to run, try to hide, hope you don't get caught. Call the athorities (provided it is not them who desire you harm) and hope they arrive in time, or fight back. Should you fight back, hopefully you are more powerfull than your attacker, or that they do not have a weapon of some kind.

Simply the presence of a firearm in a potential victims hands, can dissuade an nefarious individual from attempting an attack. Should that fail, and you need to shoot, I would much rather the criminal be injured or killed than myself or a loved one.

Sporting use: primarily enjoyment, competitions, black powder heritage days and cowboy action shoots promote an awareness of history and promote thought on how life was in days gone by.

Bonding: the passing of knowledge between two individuals engaged in an activity both find enjoyable. In the case of parent/child, or mentor/student, the teaching of the responsibilities of firearm use and the skills involved is important. If more people knew how to safely handle/store firearms, accidental deaths would be greatly reduced.


In closing, while I applaud the idealistic and utopic view that any form of killing is wrong and can/should be prevented, this is simply not the way life works.

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

2 million legal Canadian gun owners DID NOT kill anyone today, or yesterday or the day before...we have about 7 million guns...

You are a troll who has no idea of what you are talking about.

from ChaosEngine

You're right. Clearly the solution is to legalise rape, kidnapping, theft, assault and murder since people are doing it anyway.

Just noticed your postes wern't private, thought I'd post my reply.

LOL I concede I am an ape!

This is long but addresses many of your questions I think. Also your assumption on my thinking was correct...can't remember what it was but I agree.

now on to the LONG post.

A) Willpower while it has limitations, it is not Limited to a finite value. Just ask any smoker who has quit. Or, a recovering alcoholic.

B) Repeat criminals do not appear to have willpower issues, they make conscious decisions to defy the law, and ether justify it to themselves or simply have contempt for the law. Some may feel the law is wrong or simply does not apply to them.

C) If all it took for a human being to lose their humanity, self respect, morality and honor was to be at the losing end of life why have we not seen a violent uprising of the homeless and downtrodden. The addicts who HAVE lost everything and wander the streets trying to survive would therefore be the most justified to go on a rampage would they not?

D) As for American laws relating to firearms, I am a Canadian and therefore will not argue those laws, as I have little knowledge in that area.
As for Canada, the process of licensing requires a full background check, questioning of witnesses towards your character and ultimately is up to the discression of the license issuer, as I mentioned before.

Are there flaws? Yes. But that is a result of the system. Ideally the system would prevent or remove firearms from any individual before violence occurs. However in order for that system to function flawlessly one must live in a system similar to Communist Russia during Stalins reign. Where every action or spoken word is monitored and reported to the government, by agents, or even by family.

Canadian restrictions to licensing are as stringent as the LAW curently allows them to be without infringing ( too much) on an individual's rights.

E) A piece of plastic does not guarantee the holder to be law abiding. However, the process involved to acquire said item does involve scrutiny. And the desire to legally go through that process as opposed to acquiring firearms illegally and with much less effort does say something towards the individuals intentions.

F) Firearms training and safety cources do indeed instill responsibility, confidence in the use, and the safe possession of firearms. Personally I believe everyone eligible should be trained in the safe responsible use of firearms. Whether they choose to own or not. ( we have sex Ed in school, why not gun Ed )

G) As for F*** heads, they will always be F**** heads. One purpose of licensing is to prevent them from acquiring firearms legaly. Thankfully most of humanity does not fit into this category. ( however they do seem to be breeding at an alarming rate)

H) As for the Katana, not only was it a weapon, it was a symbol of honor for samurai and was passed down through generations with a reverence bordering on a relic. Spend time and look up the 7 virtues of the Bushido code.

Regarding Nukes, while their application is abhorrent to any rational human, think about how many were actually used for their intended purpose. TWO!, out of how many thousands. And both were released by human hands. Possession does not equate to application.

I) Yes firearms were designed for military use, but for us to cover everything we use in our lives that started out or were improved by the military (essentially to make it easier to kill the enemy) would require more effort and space than is practical in an Internet disscussion.

J) The legitimate use of firearms.
The big Taboo, Killing:
The military uses firearms, and other tools to kill the enemy. This enemy is defined by the state who are elected officials. I won't go into depth as to why, as that is best served by a political debate. Suffice it to say that guns could be perceived to actually combat evil.

Hunting: another form of killing, however for most, the game is hunted as a food source. The only distinction I make between wild game, and beef in the store is who does the killing ( and I could use a uphenism for the word kill, but let's call a a spade a spade )(also keep in mind hunters are the leaders in protecting the ecology, ducks unlimmited was and is a group of hunters)

Defense: when another human desires you harm what recourse do you have? You can try to run, try to hide, hope you don't get caught. Call the athorities (provided it is not them who desire you harm) and hope they arrive in time, or fight back. Should you fight back, hopefully you are more powerfull than your attacker, or that they do not have a weapon of some kind.

Simply the presence of a firearm in a potential victims hands, can dissuade an nefarious individual from attempting an attack. Should that fail, and you need to shoot, I would much rather the criminal be injured or killed than myself or a loved one.

Sporting use: primarily enjoyment, competitions, black powder heritage days and cowboy action shoots promote an awareness of history and promote thought on how life was in days gone by.

Bonding: the passing of knowledge between two individuals engaged in an activity both find enjoyable. In the case of parent/child, or mentor/student, the teaching of the responsibilities of firearm use and the skills involved is important. If more people knew how to safely handle/store firearms, accidental deaths would be greatly reduced.


In closing, while I applaud the idealistic and utopic view that any form of killing is wrong and can/should be prevented, this is simply not the way life works.

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

So if you read all that I thank you! I'm prepared to say we agree to dissagree and leave it at that but I'm open to more dialog if you wish.

I wish you lived in my area so I could take you to the range to see first hand what it's all about.

Big Ape signing off

@BoneRemake w.e, fine, it's not objectifying women according to you. But call a spade a spade and be honest about what is literally in the video is at least:

"people women just being in a state of being with neato music. "

"the theme for this song was Beautiful things (fantastically shaped feminine ass') and beautiful music."

She's probably got a $40,000 student loan to cover her glow stick degree. Probably pay off in spades.

Since they wont allow a turnip in, Ron Paul is #2 choice
>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^bobknight33:
Vote Ron Paul
At least he has honesty in spades.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:
Well said Rachel. I'm struggling to find the lesser of all these republican evils (candidates). Everyone of them seems to be a deceitful arsehole.


First of all i'm not American. Second of all, if I were I'd sooner vote in a turnip

>> ^bobknight33:

Vote Ron Paul
At least he has honesty in spades.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:
Well said Rachel. I'm struggling to find the lesser of all these republican evils (candidates). Everyone of them seems to be a deceitful arsehole.



First of all i'm not American. Second of all, if I were I'd sooner vote in a turnip

Vote Ron Paul
At least he has honesty in spades.


>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Well said Rachel. I'm struggling to find the lesser of all these republican evils (candidates). Everyone of them seems to be a deceitful arsehole.

>> ^bareboards2:

I keep making the same comment on videos about religion and no fundamentalist atheist has intelligently responded to my point.
Humans have evolved with the need for religion, some portion of humanity. It has survived the evolutionary process. THEREFORE there must be some purpose or use for it, for some portion of humanity.
I find it galling in the extreme to read over and over again the chastisements of atheists dismissing a belief in God as being stupid and irrational.
The human need and ability to create the divine MUST HAVE AN EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE. Scorning and scolding people about an ingrained, evolutionarily chosen trait is ignorant and rude and no different from evangelicals, those who have that trait in spades, forcing their beliefs onto others.
I do not believe in an intelligent force in the universe, guiding everything. The doctrines and specific myths told by religions ... I personally do not understand how folks can believe these things to be factually true.
But millions do. Millions have. There must be some need for it and it is NOT MY PLACE to tell someone else to abandon something that gives structure and solace.
Just stay out of the laws of the land.
That is why I like this vid so much. It shows the human need for ... something... without it being doctrinaire.
And Richard Dawkins isn't the only atheist in the world. He is just a loud one, @ChaosEngine.


I used Dawkins as an example simply because he has the reputation of being the "most strident fundamentalist atheist" (whatever that is). In fact, he actually attempts to answer your question in the God Delusion. You'll have to read it for the full explanation but (paraphrasing here) it boils down to the idea that religion evolved as a combination of a few evolutionary traits, such as believing your parents and ascribing intent to occurrences. There's a whole chapter on the roots of religion there (from an evolutionary point of view), and it is explained far better than I could here.

I think most atheists would agree with you, that religion has served an evolutionary purpose. I don't have "The God Delusion" with me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure Dawkins acknowledges that as well.

But whether or not it serves an evolutionary purpose or not is irrelevant. The appendix served an evolutionary purpose - then we evolved to do without it. The same goes for the wisdom teeth; most people have them removed because they can cause huge problems, but in a world without dental care they are incredibly important.

Most of us atheists believe it is time, at least in the west, to "evolve" beyond the need for an invisible sky-daddy. We have the opportunity to do with religion what evolution did for the appendix.

Belief in a god is irrational. That's not to say it didn't serve a purpose, as evolution is not bound by the rational, only by phenotypic fitness. But, religion has served its purpose and, like the appendix or the wisdom teeth, it's time it was removed from our lives.
>> ^bareboards2:

I keep making the same comment on videos about religion and no fundamentalist atheist has intelligently responded to my point.
Humans have evolved with the need for religion, some portion of humanity. It has survived the evolutionary process. THEREFORE there must be some purpose or use for it, for some portion of humanity.
I find it galling in the extreme to read over and over again the chastisements of atheists dismissing a belief in God as being stupid and irrational.
The human need and ability to create the divine MUST HAVE AN EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE. Scorning and scolding people about an ingrained, evolutionarily chosen trait is ignorant and rude and no different from evangelicals, those who have that trait in spades, forcing their beliefs onto others.
I do not believe in an intelligent force in the universe, guiding everything. The doctrines and specific myths told by religions ... I personally do not understand how folks can believe these things to be factually true.
But millions do. Millions have. There must be some need for it and it is NOT MY PLACE to tell someone else to abandon something that gives structure and solace.
Just stay out of the laws of the land.
That is why I like this vid so much. It shows the human need for ... something... without it being doctrinaire.
And Richard Dawkins isn't the only atheist in the world. He is just a loud one, @ChaosEngine.

I keep making the same comment on videos about religion and no fundamentalist atheist has intelligently responded to my point.

Humans have evolved with the need for religion, some portion of humanity. It has survived the evolutionary process. THEREFORE there must be some purpose or use for it, for some portion of humanity.

I find it galling in the extreme to read over and over again the chastisements of atheists dismissing a belief in God as being stupid and irrational.

The human need and ability to create the divine MUST HAVE AN EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE. Scorning and scolding people about an ingrained, evolutionarily chosen trait is ignorant and rude and no different from evangelicals, those who have that trait in spades, forcing their beliefs onto others.

I do not believe in an intelligent force in the universe, guiding everything. The doctrines and specific myths told by religions ... I personally do not understand how folks can believe these things to be factually true.

But millions do. Millions have. There must be some need for it and it is NOT MY PLACE to tell someone else to abandon something that gives structure and solace.

Just stay out of the laws of the land.

That is why I like this vid so much. It shows the human need for ... something... without it being doctrinaire.

And Richard Dawkins isn't the only atheist in the world. He is just a loud one, @ChaosEngine.

There are times when all I want in life is a great big spade and something to hit with it. I'm half way there right now, all I need to do is find my spade...

>> ^NetRunner:

To anyone who got in my face for implying that liberals are less susceptible to groupthink than conservatives, here's exactly what I was talking about, in spades.
First you have the obviously fractious nature of the movement itself that Jon's playing off of. That happens all too often in liberal political activism, just look at how divided and nasty liberals got over health care.
But the deeper problem is that this is what Jon did with it -- make disharmony and fractiousness look like some sort of giant, soul-rending hypocrisy. To have a liberal like Jon Stewart going out and trumpeting the idea that the Occupy movement is both disorganized and deeply hypocritical is the kind of thing only the left does to itself. You don't see anyone on the right going out and doing a hit job like this on the Tea Party, ever.
I'm especially mad that this is essentially all he had to say in response to the huge police action that went down at OWS just the other day -- great shame the movement got cut short by jackbooted thugs, but don't worry, it was meaningless and not going anywhere anyways.
I love you Jon, but for fuck's sake, can't you find some way to dial the self-destructive BS back a bit?


Even worse--just before this bit he declared that the Occupy Movement is over. I've been watching Jon's reporting on Occupy closely because I suspected he didn't support the movement. He's all for change--but this inconvenienced him and some of his rich friends. First the Rally to Restore Complacency--now this.

It's not over Jon. He's on my shit list now. He's been dismissive since day one. Colbert is a supporter--Jon is not.

To anyone who got in my face for implying that liberals are less susceptible to groupthink than conservatives, here's exactly what I was talking about, in spades.

First you have the obviously fractious nature of the movement itself that Jon's playing off of. That happens all too often in liberal political activism, just look at how divided and nasty liberals got over health care.

But the deeper problem is that this is what Jon did with it -- make disharmony and fractiousness look like some sort of giant, soul-rending hypocrisy. To have a liberal like Jon Stewart going out and trumpeting the idea that the Occupy movement is both disorganized and deeply hypocritical is the kind of thing only the left does to itself. You don't see anyone on the right going out and doing a hit job like this on the Tea Party, ever.

I'm especially mad that this is essentially all he had to say in response to the huge police action that went down at OWS just the other day -- great shame the movement got cut short by jackbooted thugs, but don't worry, it was meaningless and not going anywhere anyways.

I love you Jon, but for fuck's sake, can't you find some way to dial the self-destructive BS back a bit?

In reply to this comment by dag:
OK. Of course VideoSift is wildly biased. It's influenced strongly by the people who have collected here, the general makeup of the Internet -- and the ideology of its founders. As biased as it is, we want to be fair and tolerant to minority views, different cultures, religions and nationalities.

That's why what you say and do on VideoSift matters. I feel this every day. Even a simple comment upvote by me can cause real hurt. I'm sorry I upvoted DFT's comment. I honestly thought it was some good-natured banter between you two. It's hard to tell on the Internet. That's why I try to choose my words carefully. And (usually) even choose my upvotes carefully. My bad on that one.

Calling a German citizen a Nazi is also bad. I don't think you would do it at a dinner party to someone you just met. I'd ask you to leave my house. It's no more acceptable here. I read the comment that provoked your response. That was a little insensitive too, though as an American I would take that as good-natured ribbing. It's kind of funny.

Your response - and unwillingness to apologise for it - shows a lack of empathy and emotional maturity. You can definitely shout down the drainpipe here - and suitably, no one will give a shit.

I'm removing the hobble. VideoSift does not need martyrs. I'd honestly be sorry to see you go. I think you've contributed a lot to this community - but If you have to go - you'll be buried at sea in a cotton shroud. ;-)




It's not a lack of empathy. I think it's the other way around when people team up on the minorities of this site. They probably know full well how it feels to be alienated in real life, but online they tend to forget that and bully those with ideological differences. I've done it on here, but I've certainly tried to grow and change. I'm not perfect by a longshot, but empathy is something I definitely have in spades. If you knew me personally you'd probably agree.

But the bias is strong on this site and very much accepted. That's why it's hard for me to feel a sincere desire to apologize. Because I'm not sorry. I thought I was and even tried to apologize, but I just looked at his member page and thought about how one-sided this place can be. If you want to label that as emotional immaturity, that's your right. But I don't feel that way. At least not right now.

Things people do on here do matter. I'm glad what I said mattered. And I'll continue to say things that matter as long as the things other people say don't. Cheers.

Meh. She ugly.

>> ^bareboards2:

Not misogynistic -- just reflective of our culture that demands women look a certain way.
That woman isn't ugly. She just isn't. She's in the normal range of humanity, and she is making faces. Faces that you label as "ugly." But she isn't a barbie doll, controlling her face to meet cultural expectations. Like Japanese women, who cover their mouths when they laugh.
I don't really want to get into a big kerfuffle here. I have learned in my tenure here on the Sift that the vast majority of men on the Sift are not attuned to the cultural environment they live in, how women's images are controlled to meet certain expectations.
I mean honestly -- think about all the David Spades and Kevin Jameses and even George Costanzas there are out there in the media -- just normal guys, looking normal. The ranks are legion. Now name for me women who match their general attractiveness.
I mean, really. Next time you watch any movie or TV show. Pay attention to the relative diversity allowed in shapes and sizes for the men, and how limited the palette is of women.
Exhibit #1. http://videosift.com/video/He-Said-She-Said-un-romantic-comedy
Neither of those guys are particularly attractive, and certainly the heavy set guy is even less so, on any objective scale. The women? Much much much better looking than the men. This happens all the time, everywhere in the media.
I love the way that woman looks in this vid. She is lively, alive, with a point of view that has nothing to do with "looking good" for male consumption.
Anyway. Blah blah. Sorry to go on.
We'll have to agree to disagree, I suspect.

>> ^budzos:
I hope you're not trying to say my comment was misogynistic. I'm talking about the one woman... she is ugly and makes it worse with her faces. The other women look fine. The woman is particularly ugly. The men, not so.
The whole video is about daggering in cartoon world so I guess that's why every single movement is sexual.
Here's the other Major Lazer video from the same director, where he makes explicit his fetish for really ugly women: