Vaping is a great way to quit smoking. If you want to quit smoking, do that. Don't buy the drugstore stuff (Blu, etc.), though. Look for a shop or website that specializes in it and buy proper equipment and quality e-liquid.

I prefer to make my own e-liquid because quality control is easier buying ingredients separately (reputable suppliers will provide test documentation from third-party chemistry labs per batch). Also, it's much cheaper to make your own.

A high quality setup (battery, tank, coils) costs about the same as a carton of cigarettes. Mixing my own liquid (not hard, three ingredients, just mix 'em up), I spend about a dollar a week on that when you average it out.

Everyone is skirting the fact that parents are the first and last line of education when it comes to their children. It isn't just up to schools to teach. You must always question authority and make your own decisions, if you want your kids to know this stuff, teach it yourself! Sure you may not know 100% but every bit that is different than what cookie cutter schools teach is invaluable.

This will undoubtedly stir up a flame war, because it touches upon one of the forbidden topics, but what the hell:

Although there is, indeed, not a vaccination for heart diseases, a plant-based diet, across the board, in studies since, like, the 70s have shown that it basically heart-disease proofs you, not to mention diabetes.

Here's a long 53 minute video that goes over the basics, but the entire webpage has a little under 2,000 videos with a bunch of stats, papers, meta-studies, etc.

In a lot of ways, heart disease is very preventable, and even reversible in some cases, if you stop eating so much damn meat.

But, as stated above, "not eating meat" or "don't tell me what I can and cannot eat!" is up there with religion as far as topics that people get super-defensive about.

It's up you, truly, to determine what's more important: health or food deliciousness. And some people, knowingly, choose food deliciousness. And bless them. You make your own choices.

But also bless them for our ridiculous health care costs.

I'm not a fan. I don't think this is possible at any star level of the Sift to get even 10% of the images posted to be more beneficial than harmful to conversations. Using other people's images to make your own point discourages thought, and our required level of commitment to at least verbalizing your arguments yourself is one of the key ingredients that makes this such a great community.

@eric3579 has mentioned several times that there's little advantage to it. If there aren't any advantages and there are obvious predictable disadvantages, then it's a bad idea. Can anybody give examples of embedded images in comments that would benefit the Sift to such a degree that they outweigh the obvious negatives?

As @dag has said, it'll mostly be imgr etc. memes. These images are usually meant to end conversations, not foster them, so once an image like that has been dropped into a thread, it's not likely anybody will continue talking on that thread (within the comment stream).

Allowing images would encourage people to do a quick drive-by chirp or just be funny rather than actually engage. If someone posts a meme answer, I can't very well quote the meme and ask them to elaborate, nor will I waste my time explaining how I disagree with it.

I've had lots of engaging conversations with people I disagree with on the Sift because we have to use words. If those people had used a meme instead as a shortcut to their own more precise idea, they wouldn't have been forced to articulate themselves, and I wouldn't have answered.

So, no, not at any level.

Hence why get your own fruits and veggies to blend them to make your own!

Make your own animation sites:

https://goanimate.com/

http://xtranormal.com/

His wife probably came home and he was like "Hey Honey check out what I made!" and she was like "Oh My GOD! I can't get in the fucking kitchen to put the groceries away, what the hell have you done? I almost killed myself coming in the door! Jesus Christ! Would you think for once?" and He was like "But 241 grain cars! 19 engines...endless loop..." and she was like "How am I supposed to get to the couch to watch Wheel of Fortune? Turn that damn thing off I can't hear over the clacking! Wait how much did all of this cost?!" and he's like " I got them on discount for the hobby store in town that is closing. They had 245 grain cars and 20 engines, but I told them no I wanted to maintain a 1 meter gap in the trains. So I only bought 241 cars and 19 engines." and she's like "You could have built the damn thing in the basement. Did you think at all when you were building this? Did you think about the fact that your wife is going to come home and need to get over to the couch that we bought just before our wedding in 1968? No. You didn't. Because in 46 years of marriage, you haven't thought of me once! That's it, I'm tired of begging you to pay attention to me. I'm going to my sisters. Make your own damn dinner and play with your damn train. But when I come home tonight it had better be put away or I'm going to leave you Harold. Turn that Fucking thing off! I said if that is still out when I get back, I'm leaving!" and he says "yes dear...sorry honey. I'll pick it up and I'll miss you while your gone."

So voodoovoovoo, may I offer-up an armchair analysis of why you feel the need to justify anything regarding your take on the subject?

In particular, this statement:

"I *am* opposed to every single depiction of a creator that humanity has come up with so far. petty, fear-based, eternal punishment for finite crimes, constant inconsistencies in their rules, ok with slavery, and absolutely shitty morals."

I would surmise from this opener, that you may resemble a victim of the fallacy contained in this statement considering your penchant for using this website as a platform to recruit similar folks of your ilk to validate your current position within this chaotic world, any individual's perception of the same resembling a constant flux and ever-changing.

Might I know where to attend services and pay tithes to afford myself of the bounty of wisdom to be derived form your observations disguised as a statement of purpose?

Church of the Videosift perhaps??

Already a member having paid my dues thank you. I'm sure you have a bar down the street from your flat and a certainty exists there that they would appreciate you drinking alone less often and perhaps helping with the gas bill.

My advice?? Become a hack writer and create your own weekly gathering of like-minded patrons who might afford you the luxury of the proselytizing quest you're compelled to pursue here.

Jesus the Nazarene spoke of a disease regarding a similar affliction quite simply and eloquently, in a similar sentiment...

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."-Matthew 6:5

I'm sorry if I'm a dick about your current take on why you're here feeling you have to explain yourself, but from what you've described you simply are at this point in your experience, not able to conjure a god or system that does not fit into the models you have created for yourself. Kinna like my stance that anything created by men for other men is doomed to fail and already sucks.

Morality? Often relative to your dealings with those of opinions other than your own...

Make your own way, and you become the absurd creator-god perhaps?? Stranger shit has happened after all, over, and over, and over until the cessation of observation.

1. So you are suggesting people who live on 40p a day would give two squirty shits about a smartphone? That is a result of global economic issues of which one person smashing a phone (they presumably own) is negligible to the point of complete irrelevance. Non sequitur, if this is really a concern to you then you need to go after the corruptions and inequalities in our very financial system. Handing down a phone (which is likely near the end of its useful life anyway) is not going to change anything of significance here.

2. I'm suggesting you are making an entirely subjective value judgement about the pleasure and practical use one could derive from the same investment of money/material. Lets not forget he generated around $7000 of personal income from a £50-100 investment. But more than that, perhaps to some people the pleasure and entertainment of smashing that phone was comparable to other activities that might cost the same (e.g. a night of drinking or a weekend away could easily exceed the cost of that handset). Are you suggesting spending £50-100 on leisure activities etc. is morally reprehensible? Let's not forget "smartphones" don't do anything essential for most people, they are luxury items. If you have a problem with 1st world culture that's absolutely fine (laudible even) but you can't be singling out this guy for making a very successful comedy skit when there are people everywhere who's lifestyles could be politely described as "a decadent waste of atoms".

3. Absolutely nothing is stopping that smashed phone from being recycled, many shops would give you a £50-100 trade in on a new handset even in that state as they are typically just melted down anyway (and your new shiny phone contract is worth more to them than caring about the state of your bag of broken phone bits).

Besides as a matter of pedantry my point clearly stands, doing NOTHING in a drawer is clearly inferior to generating $7000, and providing 2mins of hillarity!?!?!?!? (the comparison was between hammer and drawer not drawer and charity) What you did there was called a "straw man" (i.e. twist my word's to make a different argument that helps make your own point)

4. The phone is old and they are not built to last (again feel free to rant on our disposable culture but leave this guy out of it) as @Payback pointed out it's probably knackered anyway.


Somewhere in your argument is some righteous and commendable rage about the inequalities of the global market but you're focusing it in the wrong direction here. Be angry at the CEO and shareholders of Samsung who profit from human death and suffering in the Coltan mines, the Corrupt banks that hold a fake debt over the poor populations of the world or the Complicit governments that support them. Or maybe go after the Ideologues and philosophers that conceived and spread the culture of consumer and corporate greed driven economics.


Basically anything but rage at this guy for making a IMHO pretty funny video on a budget that utterly pales into insignificance compared to just about anything else.



Could he have handed it down? Sure. Could he have traded it for a crate of jack Daniels, a half ounce of weed, an animatronic chicken alarm clock, a present for his wife etc. etc. etc.?

Your argument taken to its logical conclusion would condemn anyone that spends money or resources on anything other than practical necessities or charity. I'm not saying that's what you meant, but that's what your argument as stated invites.

I tried to read the article -- I'll try again later.

Seems like same old, same old to me.

Look, I agree with you that it is pretty stupid that women are held up as being better than men. It is really stupid that men are insulted by being defined by their lowest common denominator or by some superficial stereotype.

When I was in my 20s, which was a long time ago, I would hear things like -- if women were in charge of the world, we wouldn't have wars. Bullshit. Women are just as capable of being territorial and selfish as any man. And men being stupid about their emotions, and walled off? It was clear to me that they were victims of emotional terrorism from men, boys, women and girls, who put enormous pressure on them to "be men." Whatever the fuck that means.

But to constantly throw everything into the pot and expect every single video about women to include the pressures on men is not helping. I'm glad to hear that you acknowledge being "triggered" -- which to me is an emotional response out of scale with the current situation. I'm glad you know that.

Maybe if you could channel that energy into specifics, instead of broadsides. Instead of challenging women's right to talk about themselves and their experiences, why not challenge the part of the videos that do the denigration towards men? I try very hard not to denigrate men, and I fall into it way way way too easy. (A source of shame for me.) A woman makes a crack about men being stupid? Jump on it! Say it is bullshit. Say you don't like it when we do it to you. OPEN OUR EYES TO OUR OWN BULLSHIT.

But that isn't going to happen when a woman is talking about her own experience and you jump in and muddle things by bringing up men and their challenges. That is where the "make your own video" comes from. Men aren't the topic right now. Women are the topic. And fuck yeah, we are victims. And we need to learn how not to be. Which is what this (flawed) video was trying to do.

The thing is, men are victims too. They just never talk about it. Why is that?

I absolutely agree with you that men have enormous pressures on them. I have two male friends who have talked at length about the experience of growing up male and not fitting the stereotype (and it is a stereotype), and what they suffered as they tried to make their own lives despite those pressures. Both of them were perceived as "weak". And now they are some of the best people on the planet because they had the courage to stay true to themselves.

I just beg of you to keep these topics separate.

Let women talk about their issues.

If you can find videos where men talk about their issues, post them.

If you find something in a video where men are denigrated, speak up about that specific piece of it.

It godawful tiring trying to change the world, isn't it?

(And maybe as you stick up for men in specific instances, you might grow some insight into the challenges faced by women. Maybe gain some sympathy as you attempt to help women have some sympathy towards men.)

Quite irrelevant. Those rebels are backed by the west (UK, France, USA) since the beginning, some reports even say its again one of those CIA induced overthrows. So Ron Paul is exactly right.

Your critical analysis is non-existent. They have already made up their mind, no matter who did it, and Ron Paul is just trying to talk sense.
Quite logical, when you take into account that they have supported the rebels since the start and dont even care, if they did that attack, or, as some reports say, got those weapons from the Saudis.

You Americans are once again making your own "terrorists". Ron Paul has learned this simple thing long ago and thats why what he says is absolutely true, and his side swaying is just an attempt to show people how it really is. Instead you bitch about it, since you dont know whats going on.

Responsibility is a good teacher, but only when it's enforced. Rules and laws are responsibilities, you still have the ability to make your own decisions as to whether to be responsible. Society has the responsibility to punish you for being irresponsible. That simple.
You have the "freedom" to break any law/rule you want, you'll only "learn" it's wrong to do so if you have to be responsible for your actions. Removing responsibility removes incentive for learning.
The solutions people have come up with to solve the ever changing issues that arise from "freedom" are called "laws"...and you want to remove them? Um....
The original point here was that removing the gun show loophole does not remove freedom or add rules, except the freedom to escape responsibility for improperly using a gun thanks to it not being registered to you.
edit: or the freedom to easily possess an unregistered firearm when you are legally prohibited from owning any firearm.
I don't see an issue with asking citizens to demonstrate in some way their level of responsibility when operating any dangerous item (at least items that can be dangerous to others when operated improperly). We do it for cars, we do it for knifes (if you intend to use it on a person, you must be a DR.), we do it for planes and boats. Sadly just getting a person to admit they purchased a firearm and proving they aren't legally insane is too much responsibility for some. You have said that somehow that instills responsibility with out ever explaining why or how.
I didn't think I was rude in the least, I explained humorously that you completely missed the point and asked you to try again. When you did, you agreed with me, mostly.

@VoodooV Wow, why are you being such a bully? You're not actually stopping to think.

The question you say I'm avoiding is the one I'm trying my best to explain on every post, yet you're constantly avoiding it yourself (as if there's something inextricably cryptic about the relationship between freedom and responsibility), all the while accusing me of being a coward. Like saying it repeatedly will make me or anyone else believe it.

Are you also placing on me the burden of thinking for the both of us?

If you want to own a gun, you buy, steal or make your own gun, there, you have a gun. The gun won't stop working if you don't have a permit! Is that math too hard to understand, is being overly antagonistic and close-minded your "debate strategy"?

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"!

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.

If I impose stricter gun control, as a government, I'm coercing people to comply with more rules, that means a little more coercion ends up happening in society, from government towards the people. Not counting that kind of coercion (necessary to enforce any rule), stricter gun control doesn't seem to make people directly less likely to coerce each other, does it?

My question was, "won't people be less inclined to be responsible if they have less freedom?". Like I said, if I make decisions for someone, I can make them act responsibly, but that doesn't make them more responsible, because I'm still the one making their decisions.

Freedom is a good teacher. If I let someone make mistakes and pay for them, they'll most likely avoid them all by themselves, eventually. If I make decisions for them though, they end up with less freedom, and, therefore, tend to act less responsibly, wouldn't you agree?

@VoodooV Isn't responsibility about making your own decisions and accepting their consequences? I mean, if you're not making the decisions, doesn't make sense to be held responsible for them. Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility, it's about the power to make your own decisions, being held responsible seems like a necessary consequence.

So, less freedom = less responsibility, wouldn't you agree?

I'm sorry, I don't know how else to put it, it seems quite obvious to me, I'm not sure what you want me to prove.

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?

Gun control, on the other hand, doesn't seem like an actual requirement to owning a gun. Again, seems like apples and oranges.

You want someone else making stricter decisions as to whether someone can carry a gun. Not letting people make that decision for themselves takes freedom away from them.

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.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.