Yeah, because parents are never up to no good....and moronic criminals never record their crimes.
🤦‍♂️

Legitimate to worry, not legitimate to take it upon yourself to test it. I'm worried about my money in the bank, it's not legitimate for me to break into the vault to see how easy it is. Duh.

What?! How would the school not having funding to increase security in any way excuse her going to great lengths putting all other students at risk? It would be worse, because she would be going in knowing they CAN'T increase security because they can't afford to.

You are free to assume this person had only perfectly pure motives (just as others are free to assume she was going to kidnap a child for a sex slave while disguised as another child in a mask and hoodie), but that doesn't change the fact that she surreptitiously snuck into the school with no authorization or authority to do so. Her motives might be above board, her actions aren't even close. The proverbial road to Hell is what you think excuses her illegal actions.
Edit:You seem to be suggesting we prosecute thought crimes only....If I intend to commit a crime but don't intend to do harm, no foul, but if I wish to do harm but take no action, lock me up. That's not American or reasonable without a perfect mind reading machine. We prosecute actions, and her outrageous trespass was definitely illegal.

Would you be fine with me, or any random citizen "testing" the security of your home when only your children are there? What if I dress like their friend? Gee....why not? Don't you think the other parents have the right to not have adults constantly trying to be in their schools disguised as kids under masks?

That article seemed pretty severely biased itself, for example.....
"Still, the employee called the police, because the threat of two black men sitting in the store without purchasing coffee proved too much for her. The employee, of course, was white."
That is not a dispassionate or fair way to describe what happened, and is ascribing motives based on what? Mind reading?

Were there people in the store who hadn't purchased anything at all that had no issues? If so, that's decent evidence of bias imo.
Otherwise that's comparing apples to oranges.

I'm going to be honest here.

I'm really tired of these. I've just lost my tolerance for negativity. The whole internet is one big Negafest. Whining and complaining about everything. Life is so much more. (I'm also guilty of being negative on the internet.) it's a place people come to fling poo in order to make themselves feel better because of all the crap in RL, a virtual retreat instead of just improving their lives.

Also, I'm just tired of people complaining about how movies aren't the way "the viewer would have done it." I mean lets also be honest about this. You can't mind-read everything and create movies based on a committee of EVERYONE. People need to learn how to watch and listen and appreciate someone Else's creativity.

Rant ended.. I feel better (irony complete)

I'm out the door in just a few minutes, but I've read what you've written. I'll read it again more carefully once I return.

Would you mind reading that PDF I linked to, please? I think a bigger truth is somewhere to be found between the opinions expressed here and that rather insightful piece of writing.

This is where our views part: I am not ready to ascribe malice to what can be explained by incompetence. I am not willing to do so without something more to go on. I think this sort of sensationalism can be dangerous and polarizing.

There's no doubt that these two cops could have killed the caregiver had they the intent. Even just the cop that fired, had he really wanted to, could have killed the victim, easily. The fact that they did not do so doesn't exonerate them from all wrong doing, but it does stand in the face of your charges of attempted murder.

If three shots were fired, and only one of them hit the victim, why do we assume that he was firing at the caregiver, and not the other fellow? Either way, most shots missed, and we can see the prone man was between the sitting man and the shooting man. Horrible idea to be firing, but to ascribe motive at this point is to get ahead of yourself. Negligence seems more likely.

As for the delay in medical care, there are a lot of assumptions being made it seems. Where was he shot? Was he bleeding profusely? How many of those 15 minutes passed before medics were even on the scene? The cufffing is clearly a bad idea in this case, but also sounds like protocol, which can hardly be maintained constitutes attempted murder.

That is why it is damaging to jump to conclusions early. We can say that the shooting was clearly unjust and unjustified. We can say that the officer clearly acted incompetent in his job, causing significant harm to an innocent. Beyond that you're straying into the mind reading business.

You seem to have answered your own question.

Mind read much? Based on his name and his homemade clock in a briefcase you figured out what his thoughts and his intentions were? That's an insanely bold assumption my friend with the information you have.

Well, only privileged users are able to downvote. It isn't like Reddit where everybody can downvote. I believe people care for their videos in a different way on VideoSift because we like this community in a different way than others. Downvoting a video 'because it is an option' doesn't make sense here. What you're saying with your special-privilege downvote is that you as a trusted administrator of the VideoSift site think less people should see this video.

It's a fine video of a fun trick and a mind-reading/prediction trick isn't something we've seen recently on the sift. It's good to have around and I'm glad I saw it. I think the reason you chose to assert that less people should see the video is unfounded. I look forward to your rebuttal.

Well, now I've downvoted it as well. For two reasons:

1. It was a pretty standard mind-reading/prediction trick
2. Because it is an option. It's not "your" video and downvoting is not a reflection on you as a person. Most people seem to up-vote or not vote at all, failing to exercise their third option. I choose to use all options available to me, including downvoting "meh" videos.

There's two certainties with "mind reading" magic videos:

1) Someone will say it's NLP in the YouTube comments.

2) It's not NLP.

Maybe he can mind read and knows that Anne is a thieving little B*****

*promote skepticism and awesome mind reading stuff

@newtboy If you've heard "most Teabaggers" advocating such things, why haven't you reported them to the "authorities" for conspiring to commit a crime?

Leaving lies and absurdities aside, "advocating" something is legally different from specifically inciting someone to commit a crime, knowing that they will in fact go through with it. I guess Manson could've claimed that he was joking or something, but the court didn't think so any more that they would think that Bin Laden and the other 9-11 "masterminds" were just "advocating" without expecting anything to happen. Manson was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, not with actually murdering anyone. "Most" Teabaggers aren't conspiring to kill anyone.
Like the head of a criminal organization "conspiring"* or ordering a subordinate to go take someone out, a lot depends on the relationship between the instigator and the one who does the deed -- which is not the same as "advocating" generally or to random people to do some criminal activity in the abstract. So, yeah.. why, indeed, would they get such a "bad rep?"
As for Manson getting a "bad rep?"
It's a mystery dude, a total mystery.


*The charge does not require actually committing any crime (other than conspiring) of going through with it. That's why law enforcement likes entrapment so much: because they can make arrests by instigating people to plot a crime. It's like hiring an undercover cop pretending to be a prostitute. No actual crime was committed, but the intention to commit a crime itself is considered a crime. But, to be sure, there's some degree of "mind reading" involved in the charge of conspiracy, as the law implies the assumption of intent. The charge, then, lends itself to false accusations (and convictions) too. (Apparently social media is inundated with agents trying to get people to agree to crimes so that they can get arrested and prosecuted for conspiring. Of course, nobody trolls videosift for legal advice.)

German Channel ProSieben - Galileo featured Miroslaw Magola who promotes Telekinesis. Real Magneto, X- Men, Miroslaw Magola's telekinesis is achieved by projecting a portion of his consciousness in the object that he want to move.

Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku : THE FUTURE OF THE MIND: The scientific quest to understand, enhance, and empower the mind.” And his quest to promote: “Telepathy. Telekinesis. Mind reading. Photographing a dream. Uploading memories. Mentally controlled robots.”

Kaku claims all of “these feats” have already been achieved. “These feats, once considered science fiction, have now been achieved in the laboratory, as documented in THE FUTURE OF THE MIND,” Kaku’s website declares.

Kaku notes that his “book goes even further, analyzing when one day we might have a complete map of the brain, or a back up Brain 2.0, which may allow scientists to send consciousness throughout the universe.” Miroslaw Magola alias "Magnetic Man," ( Magnet Mann ) known form Stan Lee's Superhumans - MInd Force who allegedly exhibits telekinetic powers aired on History and Discovery Channel born in Poland and now living in Germany. He claims he can lift objects off the floor, transport them through the air and force them to stick to his body - all using the power of his mind .

He was investigated by Prof. Dr. Dr. Ruhenstroth-­Bauer and Dr. Friedbert Karger of the Max Planck Institute and Dr. David Lewis (psychologist), a neurophysiologist at MindLab, one of the United Kingdom's leading neuro-research centers and Dr. Konstantin Korotkov, professor of Physics at St. Petersburg State Technical University in Russia and Alexander Imich from USA. More [url redacted]

As I said, if you want to msg me, we can discuss this further. I've posted many reasons why I said what I did, if you don't want to accept them at face value that's your choice.

>> ^VoodooV:

unless you can read minds or they specifically state "I downvote because I hate religion" you can't judge intent that way.
But you're missing the point. It matters not what topic you discuss, if you commit a logical fallacy, people won't respect you and guess what, they're more likely to downvote you here.
understanding and avoiding logical fallacies is like...debate and discourse 101.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Funny thing is, the article on fallacies is one of the few things that both Wikipedia and Conservapedia agree on, both articles appear accurate. Of course, Conservapedia's examples are radically different
What I see you (and bobknight) do a lot is commit the "appeal to belief" fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html
you can believe whatever you want to believe, but when you pass your belief off as fact in the public arena without anything to back it up, you lose any credibility you may have earned.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I gave proof in the thread, most notably the 18 discarded posts I have. I'm not going to debate religion with you here. If you want to debate me, then msg me and pick a topic.
>> ^VoodooV:
see here we go with more fallacies.
"People downvote for ideological reasons (they hate religion)"
This is an untrue statement. Unless you've developed some mind reading abilities that I'm not aware of, you simply cannot know why people downvote.
You forget the most simple reason of all: Religion has zero basis in fact and/or reason, therefore it has zero grounds to be treated with any authority. especially in matters of public government."
If you're going to claim they just do it because of hate, you better: 1) back that up with actual evidence and arguments. and 2) ask yourself the very simple question: "If they do hate religion, do they have a good reason why?"
I'd be willing to bet the kids molested by priests can think of a view VERY GOOD reasons's why.