You're making the assumption that angry dad has a point to make, and isn't just being angry dad, and that Kevin Smith doesn't have a child in the back seat himself, and that Smith was really driving badly/dangerously.
Dude driving like an asshole? Maybe. We didn't see that happen, and I'm hesitant to take the word of a raving violent asshole.
Dad's driving like an asshole by abandoning his car and child in traffic to scream, then assault someone else, definitely a giant throbbing asshole.
When someone jumps out of their car in traffic and approaches yours, filming them is totally appropriate, and being slightly amused is not abnormal. When someone assaults you by smashing your window into your face, having them arrested and their child removed by CPS is appropriate.

To me this incident is 100% angry dad being the dangerous criminal here. Even if the filmer was driving poorly, the reaction was ridiculously criminal and ACTUAL child abuse (committing a violent crime while driving/abandoning your child is certainly abusive).
Maybe I better get my pipe hitting, blow torch n' pliers using brothers to snatch and teach him a lesson? ;-)

If you're up for entertainment of the wierder kind, give this a once-over. The picture alone is worth a dozen wtfs.

Hitchens.

Watch the debate on Catholicism with Hitchens and Fry on one side and a bishop and an idiot politicians on the other. The pro-catholic side are so unbelievably outclassed it's not even a contest.

To everyone else... Gay Byrne deserves a lot of credit.

He was host of the Late Late Show in Ireland for decades and during that time he presided over some incredibly contentious debates on a number of issues in Irish society (contraception, homosexuality, divorce, abortion, child abuse, the north, political corruption, etc.). Looking back it was a slightly bizarre mix of Letterman, Bill Maher and Questions and Answers on the BBC. Despite the fact that Byrne himself would be a reasonably mainstream guy, he IMO hosted the debates fairly (and frankly, considerably better than most modern debate shows).

The Faith of my father, is not my faith. He allowed me to make my own mind up about Gods and creation by drawing on education, observation, free thought and my own experiences. In fact, he was adamant that the indoctrination of children into ANY religion or belief system was tantamount to child abuse. I often wonder how I would have turned out if he had not been so enlightened. I owe him my independence, for which I will be eternally grateful.

Not only am I disgusted at the way this mother and father are treating their son, I'm shocked at the comments on YouTube supporting them.

Christians wonder at why atheists won't embrace their religion. This is why. How can any person choose the "Word of God" over the love of their own children? These parents are not following their God's teachings, they are using the bible to support their own fears and bigotry.

There is something genetically wrong with people like this. Would it be wrong to to suggest they go to a camp and get psychiatric help to correct their ways of life, because I think hate, violence, judgement, bigotry and child abuse are far worse crimes than than being Gay in the eyes of their God.

As someone who is against circumcision by default, let me just say:

If you chop off your sons foreskin for cosmetic, cultural or religious reasons, that's child abuse.

And if you do it with a freaky old man removing the skin with his mouth, well, that's just fucking weird....

but

if an adult male makes an informed decision to get circumcized, I have no problem with that.

if you can show a genuine harm reduction (i.e. lower chance of HIV) for infants, I can also get behind that. This is the point of science. When there is new evidence, you change your mind.

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)

Yeah well...the film sucked and Bryan Singers' a complete piece of child-abusing shit-Do the world a favor and tattoo 'Homosexual Predator' across his forehead and send his ass to Chino.

...if only that really happened.
I'm 100% in favor of feeding human meat to animals, if it's safe for them to eat (most is probably poisoned). At least we could give a little back to nature in death, but people seem to want to keep it to themselves for some reason.
I'm also in favor of eugenics, or selective breeding of animals we have control of (including humans). We could have almost completely ended genetic diseases in one generation if only the thought didn't outrage and disturb most people. We could have also stopped the insane overpopulation with strict selective breeding, solving many if not most of the problems facing us today. That is a step removed from offing my little bro to feed the dogs....even I'm not that heartless in real life.
The only arguments I've heard against it are 'only Nazi's would do that', and, 'it's my right to pass on my (low quality) genes to as many mini-mes as I wish'. I disagree with those ways of thinking and see them as throwing out the baby with the bath water or short sighted self centered bad planning (or child abuse, depending on your genes).
Personally, I didn't think my 'better than average' genes were good enough to warrant creating another person to save them. (I have an above average IQ and no known physical genetic flaws, only crippling personality flaws and a broken body!) Perhaps you can imagine how I feel about the likes of Honey Boo-boo breeders negating my choice and then some.
I know, I know...I'm a disgusting narcissistic Nazi freak....but what about the argument I made?

We want an INVESTIGATION / COMPENSATION AGAINST BRITAIN FOR ALLOWING CHILDREN TO BE WRONGFULLY IMPRISONED BY THE IRISH STATE LAW WHO WERE BORN IN BRITAIN AND SUFFERED ABUSE IN IRELAND BOTH CULTURAL AND PERSONAL ABUSE.
CULTURAL ABUSE IS WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT / SLAVERY
THEN THE PERSONAL ABUSE SUFFERED. BRITAIN IS GUILTY OF CHILD ABUSE.

This totally is child abuse. The guy's breath probably stinks.

I honestly shudder to think that there is a stuck-up sensi-poo out there who would love to report this as child abuse to Child Protective Services.

Did they actually include a not-so-subtle threat at the end there?

Ordinarily, I'd probably say something about due process, etc, but fuck it... bikers beating up child abusers? I suddenly find I have no problem with that.

Anyone against this idea must support child abuse. Case closed. Right?

Stop saying this looks brutal. It doesn't. Stop making us feel like we're THAT overly sensitive to everything. Are we? Oh you are? Oh I am. That's right. Well, stop making this woman apologize for your stupid liberal agenda. DA LIBERAL AGENDA. Is it worse than the CONSERVATIVE AGENDA. Not sure.

Words come out of my mouth; thought flows into my fingers onto a keyboard. What are they these thoughts and words? Cute animals all day, cute child abusing animals. On the youtube embeds. Cute BUT UNFORTUNATELY CHILD ABUSING. Save us from our kingdom the animal kingdom. Tear the flesh from our bones and make us spiritual beings of everlasting moral behavior. I can't bear witnessing the utter brutality! Ahhhhh!