No, no, no offense taken. I and don't think you're hypocritical. You probably consume far less tuna over the course of a year than an average Japanese individual. The sad thing is, the population as a whole here is completely unaware of the tunas' plight. There's a conspiracy-theory level lack of coverage of the issue in the media here.

Case in point, a few weeks back the media reported about the first tuna auction of the year at Tsukiji Market in Tokyo, where traditionally people overbid on the largest tuna caught as kind of "good luck in the coming year" tradition. Except, the highest bid this year (as well as the fish caught) was much smaller than the last two years.

I read two different Western newspaper articles on the topic and they both went into great detail about how tuna catches are way down due to overfishing and how the size of the fish being caught is much smaller because only the juveniles are left (the more adult fish have already been caught). Both mentioned Japan consumes 80% of the worldwide tuna haul.

Then that night I go running at my local gym and watch the Japanese nightly news and they have a brief 30-second bit about how the first Tsukiji auction of the new year took place and how the person who won was the same as last year.

That's it, end of coverage. I literally laughed out loud on the treadmill, more in bitterness than anything else.

That's why in my Media English classes at the university I teach, the first newspaper article of the semester is always an English newspaper article about the tuna fishing situation. The kids are shocked at the statistics and they tell their friends about what they read. Most claim they're going to stop eating tuna. I have no idea if they actually do or not, but it's all I can really do to try to change attitudes here.

juvenile

Lol.

Edit:

Sorry, that was juvenile, I should add content. Bullying is not up for debate. You would not try to let me make up my mind if some kid got beat to hell and back on a bus by three or four other kids. Yet this is your opinion here--let yourself decide.

Letting someone burn to death or suffocate is not up for emotional debate. See, there is no easy solution here. How can the law break the law? How can they put their liability out there when they are commanded "to serve and protect." Would you? If so you would no longer have that choice after the first time. You might be in jail for a long time, who knows. I just don't like the damned if you do. Perhaps the law should be changed, but the sense of injustice therefore falls on the law.

@shatterdrose @EvilDeathBee @RedSky @ChaosEngine and @PlayhousePals

I know what a mechanical bunny is. First saw it on the Simpsons, loved it on Family Guy. I was being factious. Now you might say, "Well hit the sarcasm button." But this wasn't sarcasm because sarcasm is on a higher level. I was annoyed by the juvenile way he went about that part but do not mean to imply a hurt of some sort.

I think the next time I will just hit the sarcasm button even if it doesn't particularly apply.

Those beeps are so annoying. We all know they are saying "fucking", so say it. This censorship of curse words is ridiculous and juvenile.  Grow up America.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bird, juvenile kestral, kestral, backyard, fence' to 'bird, juvenile kestrel, kestrel, backyard, fence' - edited by calvados

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But when that opinion is ill-informed, juvenile, uneducated, and ignorant, it would be wise to keep it to oneself. In short, "Yogi," stop digging a bigger hole and be quiet.

Odd that I can remember when sift was moderatly decent, and didn't go off into the deep end of failing to understand the law. It's also useful to note after watching the video, that the entire opinion piece is missing some key facts. Such as, Martin was known to police. The only reason why he didn't have a felony rap sheet was because the "juvenile justice" program kept him out of the courts. Fun to note that if you pay attention between what this guy is saying, and look at the physical evidence about 30-40% of what has been said is either a distortion, or a lie.

It's also fun to know that you don't always do a toxicology report on the person who shoots, especially on grounds of self-defense. It's even more fun, to note that he wasn't arrested because the police found no probable cause to do so. It wasn't until the DOJ got involved, along with POTUS to make it into a racial issue--that it happened.

Now it's even greater that Angela Corey failed to meet the grounds for an affidavit for probable cause. Instead directly mislead, and lied in the one that was submitted. The entire case was a sham trial, and if you'd rather believe what some flappy headed person NBC, or CNN, or YT is telling you, then feel free to wallow in your own ignorance.

@VoodooV Like I've been saying all along, your posts are mostly attempts at intimidation. I enjoy answering some of your questions, because it helps me question my beliefs, something I think is constructive and that you seriously shouldn't be afraid of. We are all supposedly looking for the truth anyways. All this could be settled by answering my simple question, whether you'd agree or not, it wouldn't even necessarily be an argument against gun control. I was pointing out the apparent conflict between wanting people to be more responsible by taking their freedoms away, when taking their freedoms away might not contribute to making them responsible people in the long run. An unpresumptuous suggestion meant to be taken as food for thought.

Instead, you resort to being juvenile and making fun of me, while writing huge posts with my entire posts quoted afterwards as an attempt at making me turn away in horror at the sight of a huge wall of text. Sure, it takes me time to sift through all of it to see what really matters. You're trying to muscle your way through, and it's a waste of everyone's time. I actually take the time to make my posts short and to the point, did you notice that? I happen to think it's a good habit to have some consideration for the reader, why am I not surprised you have none for me?

So, instead of appreciating that I don't waste your time by making an effort at being succinct, you accuse me of avoiding some of your arguments. It's true, I avoid a few of them because I think they're irrelevant, it's called being selective. Now I know that was a bad idea. I'm terribly sorry. I won't do it anymore. I will take the time to answer the most points I can to the best of my ability, and if that my makes my posts tiresomely long and wastes my time, so be it.

I bet you're trying to flood me with words because this isn't about any truth, is it? It's about discouraging and distracting me from something. Ever heard of picking your fights? It's about being reasonable about yours and other people's times. After all, I do assume you have a life outside of this internet topic on videosift, don't you? Anyway, let's get to it:

- About emotional manipulation, you FAILED to prove it, and here's why:

When you obey traffic laws, you are being coerced if there is coercion as consequence for not obeying them. Will you get arrested? Will you get your car, which is your property, impounded if you disobey? Then yes, they are coercive laws.

When you decide not kill someone because the law will coerce you if you do, you're being coerced into not killing, even if you freely decide not to kill out of good morals and empathy for fellow human beings, the option of killing is always there in reality (you can always kill anyone if you really want to), but not legally. If you kill, you're under the threat of going to prison. The positive or negative language seems completely irrelevant, what matters is what happens when you disobey the law. If coercion ensues, the law is coercive, or, more accurately, its enforcement. I'm not actually making the distinction right now if it's a rule related to coercion itself (a rule that makes coercion more or less likely to happen), just pointing out the irrelevance of your distinction between negative and positive language.

Now, I have to admit that there is divergence when it comes to defining coercion, but there is no emotional content here as far as I can tell. I'm using it in the sense that people have a right to their life, property and freedoms, and when you take or threaten to take away any of those things (and have the power to do so), THAT is coercion. There is no emotion here, I am offended that you would think that I would resort to that, because I don't even have to. Coercion has a meaning to me, I'm just using the concept as it is. If there is an emotional content, SHOW ME what emotion that is. Up until now, you have FAILED to do so.

- About requiring things before freedoms are granted, I think you FAILED to make your point, here's why:

To type boring senseless posts on the internet, you require a keyboard. Maybe, if you could type with voice recognition, like I do, you wouldn't need a keyboard, but what matters is that you use something to type or produce characters that will be submitted to the videosift website and become a useless post. So, for the sake of argument, let's call this an "actual physical requirement".

Now, with a gun to your head, if I require that you, VoodooV, jump through actual flaming hula-hoops positioned vertically on an intricate obstacle course before typing in your videosift comments, the world would be a better place (at least videosift would). However, my requirements would be arbitrary in the sense that it imposes something not actually physically necessary to enjoy the hypothetical "freedom to post inane ramblings on videosift" (we are assuming it's a right), can you spot the difference?

So, requiring things that are not necessary to enjoy a freedom is not something that makes the freedom better or is in any way justifiable just because history is littered with the precedent of assholes like kings and despots requiring stupid things before we can enjoy freedoms that we supposedly already have. When it comes to guns, a law says we have a right to bear them. Any laws that restrict that supposed right are infringing on the freedom that comes from having that right.

- About the claim that people will be less responsible if they have less freedom:

"If I made decisions for you, I could make you act more responsibly, but that's not the same thing as making you a more responsible person."

"Over time, when we take people's freedoms away, they tend to be less responsible about the decisions we're not letting them make. There's no way they can learn about any different (good or bad) outcomes related to decisions they couldn't make, and they can't be held responsible for them either, so they can hardly become more responsible."

- About your reduction to absurdity claim that removing all the rules would make us "SUPER-Responsible":

"I don't think rules inevitably destroys our freedoms, let's make a more refined distinction:

- If a rule is meant to stop people from infringing on each other's freedoms, if it's a rule that makes people less likely to coerce each other, it's a good rule because we end up with less coercion happening (even counting the coercion necessary to enforce the rule), we end up with a more civilized society. There are not many of those kinds of rules around.

- If it's a rule that imposes some regulation because we don't trust that people will be responsible enough to do what's best for them regarding something unrelated to coercion, we not only restrict their freedom by coercion (in this case, coercion by the government), it doesn't make coercion less likely, so it's likely a bad rule."

The problem with removing all rules is that, without rules related to coercion, people would be too subjected to the threat or actual coercion from other people around them, society would be less civilized. Would that make them more responsible? That's a good question. On one side, they would have a lot more responsibilities if they had to worry about their own lives and safety every frickin' day, and all the terrible worries that comes with the unstable chaos of anarchy. However, given that they would enjoy less freedoms due to the constant coercion of others, they would likely end up being a lot less responsible, because they would have far less choices.

That's why I took the time to explain the difference between rules related to coercion and rules that just infringe on freedoms.

- About your examples of requirements before freedoms and rights are granted, here's a list of your "numerous examples" and my reply to each of them:

VoodooV: "You have the freedom to go to college..."
VoodooV: "You have the freedom to have a certain job..."

"Going to college or getting a job are not things people are entitled to (supposedly), there are no rights involved, so no freedom is being denied."

VoodooV: "You have the freedom to imbibe alcohol....IF you are a certain age and can demonstrate that you can use it safely"

I don't know about using it safely (what does that mean?), but regarding age restriction, I don't agree with those laws. I know, very "liberal" of me, but I think children are the responsibility of their parents, so it's a law that steps into parenting territory.

VoodooV: "And according to the right, you have the freedom to vote..."

About voting, I don't know, I guess being registered is a requirement for the voting process? Like the right to life requires... being alive?

"The voting process, on the other hand, seems to be something that requires registration (again, I'm not an expert on voting, so forgive me if I'm wrong), otherwise we end up just shouting to ourselves, "I vote for X"!"

VoodooV: "And having a gun, or a car, has a significant risk to infringe upon other's freedoms so it's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate proficiency and safety before using said items."

A driver's license is not about owning or using a car, but about driving in public venues. I could be wrong, but we don't need a license to drive a car in our own backyards, do we?

Simply owning a gun, on the other hand, not only isn't a violation of anything, it supposedly provides protection against these violations.

- About me supposedly contradicting myself, saying "there are no rules for us talking", then proposing a dare:

Did I shoot you in the face when you failed my dare? So I guess it's not the kind of rule in the sense that I didn't threaten to coerce you if you failed it. Do you understand what kind of rule I was talking about? Do you even understand what a contradiction means, or are you just taking advantage that not everyone that reads your posts knows exactly what you're referring to make yourself look smart even though you can't point out a contradiction if it rested flat in your deepest held political beliefs?

On the subject of contradictions, strictly speaking, there's no contradiction between calling you juvenile and being juvenile myself, even if I did so afterwards, and in retaliation, to give you a taste of it.

Ooooooooh... must be very embarrassing for you not to know what a contradiction stands for.

Here's your entire post quoted, because, why not?

Ut oh, There are so many contradictions in your post. It honestly looks like you're starting to become unhinged. See this is why I quote your posts. I want you to be able to see what you say...makes it easier to spot those contradictions and makes it more certain that I am responding accurately.

It is strange though. It does appear that none of your arguments in your most recent post have anything to do with my recent response. You're making new arguments again without settling our original ones. I can only assume that means you're conceding my points.

You've asked me to prove your emotional manipulation due to your usage of "freedom" and "coercion" Oh...I'm sorry Ren, but you have missed it, but I already responded to that. Here, let me quote it for you:

"Coercion??!! Again, you're using this loaded language to emotionally manipulate us. I think George Carlin called it "Spooky Language!" Which laws are coercion and which ones aren't? How can you tell? When I obey traffic laws, am I being coerced? When I decide to not kill someone with a gun because the law says it's bad, is that coercion too??? Your two examples you give are really bad. There is no difference between the two except for loaded language. One example has positive language, the other one negative. If only there was some objective measure other than your truthiness."

There, I hope that clears things up amigo.

Ut oh, again, you referred to your original question. But Ren...I've responded to this numerous times? Did you forget? Here, let me quote those too:

"This is not exactly unprecedented to require certain things before a specific freedom is granted. Are people less responsible because of these restrictions? I think not, so how come guns are special?"

and..

"You're making a claim that people will be less responsible. *you* need to prove that. I don't need to disprove it, however I have given plenty examples of how existing requirements on existing freedoms don't seem to lead to increased irresponsibility. Burden is on you."

and...

"To your last point, but I already answered this in my previous post, by that logic, we shouldn't have ANY laws and thus we would become SUPER-Responsible!! It's a nice theory and all, but the reality is that life would degenerate into mob rule. How many other people have to pay for your "mistakes" before you learn your lesson? How much suffering and anguish does it take to "learn your lesson?" Sorry. I think you're not a student of history otherwise you'd know that this has already been tried in the past...the distant past. It doesn't work...that's why we have laws in the first place. The jury is in on this one. People generally like it that we have laws and an enforcement arm that attempts to stop the infringement of peoples' rights *before* it happens so that people don't have to "learn their lesson" at the expense of someone else's suffering. ""

and finally...

"I answered your question yet you continue to pretend otherwise. I showed you numerous examples of requirements before freedoms and rights are granted and no one is claiming they are less free because of them. You make the claim that people are less free because of gun control but you REPEATEDLY fail to demonstrate how other than to suggest we should be an anarchy. Who cares how many people suffer, they'll learn their lesson eventually right?? right?? Sorry, we tried anarchy, didn't work..we moved on. Just because you wrapped your claim in the form of a question doesn't mean shit other than you're really to play Jeopardy with Alex Trebek. You're still making a claim that people will be less responsible with less freedom. Its your claim, you need to prove it. I've said this before and you still haven't done it."

There. I'm really sorry, I thought you read all that already. That should clear it up. I'm sorry you thought I was avoiding it.

Unfortunately, you've contradicted yourself my friend. Earlier in your post, you admit there are no rules for us talking, but at the end of your post you put forth a rule for me...a dare..if you will. I don't think it's very fair that you don't have any rules, but I have to be...coerced into following your rules, do you?

If you do honestly think I'm a troll, I apologize, that certainly wasn't my intent, but you know, there is one rule that is known for dealing with trolls. Oh crap, my bad. You don't like rules, you think they take away your freedom, my bad.

I certainly hope that clears everything up buddy. Hopefully this does conclude our discussion. But then again, I thought we were done some time ago, but you kept bringing up different arguments and other distractions so I was compelled to correct your errors. HTH

PS. It is rather contradictory to accuse me of being juvenile, but you end your post with a dare. Oops! That must be so embarrassing for you!

@VoodooV as much as you'd like to fantasize about me being hurt and crying in a corner, I assure I'm just pointing out that you're wasting time trying to troll me instead of arguing like someone with the least bit of intellectual honesty, so you'll hopefully realize it doesn't work.

I guess you didn't, and now you're just being juvenile, even quoting my entire post after I asked you not to. This begs the question, why haven't you insulted my mom yet? Seriously, it's the logical next step. Why can't you be honest about being a troll? I already have the thumbnail, is this the best you can do?

There are no rules for us talking, you can do whatever you want, really, just troll like you've been doing since all this started, I won't be impressed. You think debating requires enforceable rules? Rules that involve some kind of coercion, like a fine, maybe prison time? Is that why you've been acting like a brat, to illustrate the need for what... censorship?

As much as I'd like to see you booted from the videosift community, I can't pull any strings around here, but that wouldn't be coercion if I did, because no one has a right to post on videosift. Censorship, on the other hand, would involve sending a police officer to your house and arresting you for excessive trolling. Can you see the difference? Does that example help illustrate what "coercion" means?

When I say no one cares about this internet argument, I'm hoping you'll stop trying to impress the huge crowd you think is reading this BS you've been posting. You do realize your antics are useless on me, right?

What emotional content am I resorting to when I use the words "freedom" and "coercion"? I dare you to prove to me how I'm being emotional about them. Prove it. PROVE IT. lmao

My initial question didn't involve gun control at all, it was broader, I was asking, "won't people be less inclined to be responsible if they have less freedom?", it's about how having less freedom makes people tend not to be so responsible.

Over time, when we take people's freedoms away, they tend to be less responsible about the decisions we're not letting them make. There's no way they can learn about any different (good or bad) outcomes related to decisions they couldn't make, and they can't be held responsible for them either, so they can hardly become more responsible.

You keep avoiding this simple explanation and shouting about everything else. What are you so afraid of?

P.S.: if you want to admit to trolling me, just quote my entire post again. I dare you.

Funny? It's pathetic, juvenile and crass. But then I'm way past 14 yrs of age.

The whole thing seems juvenile to me. It's not like it's news that the US government has been spying on it's own people. What angers me is that they keep trying to hide it. I think Snowden reminded us of what they were doing. And I sure hope it works as a wake-up call that the rules of the game have changed.

It's near impossible to hide anything anymore in this age where you can chat around the world in a matter of seconds. And that can be used to disrupt violent activity that harms others as well as unite the world to fight injustice (also you can order pizza too, which is pretty amazing.)

From Wikipedia:
Adalimumab (HUMIRA, AbbVie) is the third TNF inhibitor, after infliximab and etanercept, to be approved in the United States. Like infliximab and etanercept, adalimumab binds to Tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα), preventing it from activating TNF receptors. Adalimumab was constructed from a fully human monoclonal antibody, while infliximab is a mouse-human chimeric antibody and etanercept is a TNF receptor-IgG fusion protein. TNFα inactivation has proven to be important in downregulating the inflammatory reactions associated with autoimmune diseases. As of 2008 adalimumab has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, moderate to severe chronic psoriasis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Although only approved for ulcerative colitis from late 2012 by the FDA in the disease's management, it has been used for several years in cases that have not responded to conventional treatment at standard dosing for Crohn's Disease.

But yes, seeing a powerfull and potetially extremly harmful drug advertised for what seems to be (I am no medical expert) a "cosmetic disorder"is frightening.

I know most everyone else who watches this is probably too mature to find humorous such a juvenile joke, but it was executed so hilariously that I could not stop laughing out loud.

*quality

*LMFAHS