I like to think that they have amazing sex after the show, I mean really why else would get knives that accurately thrown at you.

Hi Poolcleaner,

I think you're arguing from a false premise, that a belief in Creation science does not contribute to what you call true science. Some of the greatest scientists who ever lived were creationists. Here is a list of a few of them:

http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm

Their belief that God created an orderly Universe based on laws (which is the reason we call them laws) highly influenced and inspired their exploration of the cosmos. Here are a couple of quotes:

When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets when with excellent microscopes I discern the unimitable subtility of nature’s curious workmanship; and when, in a word, by the help of anatomical knives, and the light of chemical furnaces, I study the book of nature I find myself oftentimes reduced to exclaim with the Psalmist, How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast Thou made them all!

-Robert Boyle, Chemistry

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.

-Louis Pasteur, Medicine

Creation science is a collection of data which supports the idea that the Earth is young. Some of the theories within creation science are testable and predictive, but as a whole you cannot put it in a lab and perform a measurement any more than you could do so for macroevolution, because they both concern what happened in the past. You cannot observe macroevolution happening anywhere nor can you subject it to empirical testing. You can make observations and inferences based on a theory, but that is subject to interpretation.

Sorry knives, you can't kill all your sifted videos.

Christ, judgmental much people?

I'm guessing by the comments that most people here are not in the process of potty-training children or haven't done it for a while. If you have issues with the way the dad handled this, you might want to read up on potty training: http://www.babycenter.com/toddler-potty-training-advice

We finally just recently succeeded in getting our daughter to poop in the toilet. Oddly enough she's been peeing by herself there just fine for almost a year, but was terrified of the toilet (including training toilets) when pooping for the longest time. If I had just grabbed her and rushed her in there at the first first sign of a bowel movement I would have had to deal with hysterical screaming for the next two hours AND no bowel movement to boot (learned from experience, by the way--she'll ride the cramps out or twist her body to shit on the bathroom floor instead while screaming like we're sticking her with hot knives the whole time).

She simply wouldn't do it until she was ready to do it. And one day she was ready and there was much rejoicing in the household.

Everyone learns to poop in the toilet eventually, usually by age 4 at the latest. It's not a race and there shouldn't be any pressure involved.

tl;dr

You don't know this kid. You don't this dad. You don't know where they are in the potty training process or if either is even ready for it. Hence you don't get to be self-righteous and judge this guy's parenting based on the underwhelming evidence of one YouTube video.

*quality video.

If anyone would like to read more on this subject, I recommend Steven Pinkers The Better Angels of Our Nature, which also covers deaths by crime, disease, malnutrition, etc. It's one of the most information dense books I've ever read, filled with all kinds of historical anecdotes* and grisly statistics about violent deaths per capita throughout history, but it basically boils down to this:

we live in the healthiest, happiest, most peaceful time in history.

The reason it seems so bad is that we simply have more access to information about conflicts, murders, etc than we did in the past.

It's important to note that while Vulture Capitalism isn't as bad as colonialism, it's still Pretty Fucking Bad.

* fascinating fact: the reason dinner knives are generally blunt (apart from steak knives) is because it's stopped people getting into an argument over dinner and stabbing each other. It was previously commonplace for everyone to carry their own knife to dinner and eat with it.

Ha. He must be thinking of *slightly* dull knives. The knives in my kitchen probably couldn't break the skin if I tried. Give me a sharp knife, and I usually cut myself within a few minutes because I'm so used to dull ones.

PS: Art cannot discriminate or objectify anyone. People do that. Someone runs over someone with a car, is it the cars fault? Someone gets stabbed, do you ban knives? Someone publishes a sexual fantasy, should we ban all books? Feminists embrace marxism for this reason.

I grew up watching all manner of pornography. Larry Flint is one of my personal heroes. Yet I never once tried to use a woman like some kind of fleshlight. Although I noticed boys all around me without access to pornography poaching school-girls with lies and deceit and then breaking their hearts by never calling them back, or worse, leaving them with child and no support. THAT is what objectifying someone is, if you think TV and comic books is what causes these monkey-men to behave this way, that a little bit of censorship is going to transform them into empathetic intellectuals, I just want to let you know you're in for some disappointment.

EDIT: I think you meant to say 'how can you NOT disagree that an organization that commits actual massacres...actual fucking massacres is better than Faux News?', meaning 'How can you agree Isis is better than Faux?'...right? You forgot to double the negative.

I think that can be reasonably asked because Faux news (and others) has essentially become the propaganda wing of another organization that commits MORE actual massacres (but usually from a distance...I'm talking about the US military industrial complex here). That makes them directly complicit in and a facilitator and even instigator of the killing of hundreds of thousands of 'innocent' (non-threatening) people, to me that's likely worse than directly killing hundreds, even if you only ascribe 5% culpability/responsibility to them, perhaps it's not to you.
It's a bit like if you're in a disagreement with your neighbor and your cousin comes over with a baseball bat, knives, and a stun gun, gives them to you and then constantly, angrily, threateningly, cajoles you into violent action against your neighbor. The cousin will be (properly) prosecuted right there with you when you murder your neighbor and his family...so should Faux news be.

Something does not have to be illegal for it to be suspicious. If you are found to be carrying a hammer and a towel down a residential street at night, you will be stopped and checked out to be sure you aren't using them to steal from cars or homes. That doesn't make hammers illegal, it makes someone carrying one at night suspicious.
A gun on your hip on a public street is more suspicious than a hammer, and at the least should give the officer the ability to stop and identify the person carrying it. In most jurisdictions, you must identify yourself to an officer when asked, (but nothing more) and they can 'hold' you until your identity is known.
As mentioned before, he could be a felon, therefore committing another felony by carrying a gun...therefore it's legally suspicious. Or you might be a known suspect in another crime...suspicious. Or you might be about to use that gun for a crime...suspicious. Or you might be selling crack and using the visible gun as a deterrent other crack dealers....also suspicious. So yes, anyone intentionally visibly carrying a gun on main street (where there's no need for a gun to protect yourself from anything) is suspicious, just as anyone carrying 15 legal knives would be, or someone with a samurai sword, or handcuffs, a blindfold, and a stun gun might be...none of them illegal but totally suspicious.
His actions were suspicious, more so when he won't identify himself. The officer could have said he 'met the description of a suspect at large', which he (and nearly everyone else on earth) does, there's lots of suspects at large of every description, and as I understand it he could have held him until they identified him. (really I would see that as harassment, but as I understand the law it would be allowed, I was held for 'meeting the description' of a vandal once, and the person eventually arrested turned out to be a 25 year old 6 foot black man, while at the time I was a 13 year old, 5 foot tall white boy).
Yes, people who act in a way that 'freaks normal people out' will likely be stopped and inspected if they're reported. We have all tacitly agreed to that long ago.

I have mixed feelings about the UK plug. 1) they are HUGE. therefore power strips are also quite large, and the wall outlets only have place for one device. 2) I've seen plenty of UK plugs where the conductor goes all the way to the housing, not halfway like he shows as a feature. I've seen Euro-plugs with both types as well. 3) putting fuses on the plug instead of part of the house means that too many <13A devices could be plugged in, and (if used simultaneously) cause a fire in your walls and burn your house down (I assume UK requires circuit breakers and branch circuits nowadays). 4) the same safety device that requires ground to be plugged in first makes it really-hard to plug into cheaply made outlets or power strips (the plastic cover doesn't slide easily).
That said, another safety feature that he didn't mention in the video was that most wall outlets have their own switch on the outlet itself. Turn-off ; plug-in ; turn-on. This prevents arcing, which is easier with the higher 240V.

Euro outlets' holes are too small to fit most screwdrivers, knives, fingers into, and they have both grounded and ungrounded (smaller) variety.

My favorite are the IEC-60309 plugs/outlets, but are only for bigger amperages - 20,30,50,60, etc.

Except that the "distraction's" tools are tipped with needle-sharp knives. I don't recommend that fight.

Yup, always keep your knives sharp. It is safer that way.

Apples and oranges.

It's a lot more difficult to kill people with a knife. It's nearly impossible to kill someone from a distance with one unless you've had lots of knife-throwing training--and even then it's pretty iffy.

Plus, knives require the attacker to get close to the victims, meaning the victims have a lot better chance of seeing the attacker coming and running away or even disarming the attacker as he approaches.

So, good luck killing 20 people in under ten minutes (like Sandy Hook) with a knife unless they all happen to be unconscious on the floor.

After the guns it's the knives, just ask the Chinese.
If this idiot had his way we'd all be wanded by a TSA agent when we go out our front door.