This is pretty funny for a lot of reasons, the biggest being all the people involved are so obviously not cat owners nor have they even bothered to understand cat behaviour.

First of all, the snarky comments at the end of the video, actually, it's not about wanting to believe my cat needs me, I'm very well aware it doesn't need me, that has no correlation to loving me. I appreciate that's just the person writing this script but it puts an underlining tone that cat owners are delusional and sets people up to believe the experiment was a "success", even with the little bite about it not being conclusive.

Not all cats are the same, the beauty of them is precisely their individuality! Breed also plays a very large factor and so does upbringing, not to mention social behaviour of the animal in question. Let's ignore that cats are evolutionarily independent and dogs/babies are not.

Why would a cat care if its owner left momentarily? It is not built to care about such a frivolous event, it takes notes of it (which btw, no other animal was capable of and the narrator incorrectly says the cat is distracted while it distinctly watching the owner leave) and carries on, the situation pans out.

Likewise when the owner comes back, the cat again takes note of this and because it was rather brief, it resumes carrying on its business. This wasn't some "OH MY GOD WHAT DO I DO WITH MY LIFE!??!?!" drastic event. Quite frankly, the cat has the most intelligent behaviour.

The reason it check outs the stranger is because it's an *unknown*, cats don't immediately trust *anything* until they've inspected it. If they had replaced that stranger with a paper bag, the reaction would have been the same. It's not that it is ignoring its owner, it's that it knows its owner is safe. It is inspecting a potential threat.

Cats are simply not basic enough to compare in this experiment and their evolutionary traits are directly opposed to these rather bias tests of affection.

I have a set of those "Femlin" figurines (those black and white drawings on the joke page) that my father-in-law bought back in the early 60s. A mint set was auctioned for $7000 but these are kind of battered. He kept them in a paper bag in the basement, grrrrrr. I will have to get them restored.

>> ^PlayhousePals:

>> ^ant:
That happened to me when a kid/callow ant/child when I stupidly stuck my hand into a paper bag with my new bought hermit crab. It held onto my finger for like 15 minutes! I had a bleeding finger.

(_8(I) d'ohhhhhh


Yeah. At least I didn't cry.

>> ^ant:

That happened to me when a kid/callow ant/child when I stupidly stuck my hand into a paper bag with my new bought hermit crab. It held onto my finger for like 15 minutes! I had a bleeding finger.


(_8(I) d'ohhhhhh

That happened to me when a kid/callow ant/child when I stupidly stuck my hand into a paper bag with my new bought hermit crab. It held onto my finger for like 15 minutes! I had a bleeding finger.

>> ^jimnms:

What do they use instead? I remember this discount grocery store in the little college town I went to that didn't use bags. Stuff was dirt cheap too. They put out the empty boxes that the stuff was delivered in for you to use. I always thought that was a cool idea.
>> ^dag:
Those kinds of bags are banned here in Canberra.

>> ^lucky760:
^They've also just been banned in Los Angeles.



Shoppers are encouraged to bring their own reusable bags. If they don't, paper bags may be purchased for 10 cents apiece.

It also shows how much of a cultural issue this is. America is supposed to be the land of the free (I know, we gave that up at least 10 years ago) but you can't pee outside? Here in Germany, they wouldn't bother with some guy peeing on the street, even in a city. Maybe if it's the middle of a crowded pedestrian area. But, in general, they trust that people won't do it (although drunk guys at night always do) and don't consider it worth their time to enforce some bullshit law. In the same way they don't give a shit about drinking in public, but in most places in the US you have to cover up your alcohol with a paper bag or you get fined for open container, a 'crime' which hurts no one.

Crows rock. I watched several of them sitting on the edge of a dumpster behind Arby's holding paper bags of cinnamon sticks with one claw while ripping them open...then they plucked the cinnamon sticks out and ate them like it was nothing...they ain't dumb.

Such a magnificent engine... a work of art really... wasted because it's installed in such an ugly car.

Please don't misunderstand me. I would never turn down the opportunity to test drive that machine, I'd just put a paper bag on it first.

>> ^bareboards2:

Surely this needs to be edited to say "you will NEVER be forgotten".
Maru. Maru. MARU.
>> ^skinnydaddy1:
Maru is the true final boss of the internet. To defeat him, you must master the Box slide, the box sit, the flip can a solitude and roll and bag of fashion. Good luck young warrior! You will be forgotten.



Do you remember the names of any of the others that have tried to defeat Maru?

Surely this needs to be edited to say "you will NEVER be forgotten".

Maru. Maru. MARU.

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

Maru is the true final boss of the internet. To defeat him, you must master the Box slide, the box sit, the flip can a solitude and roll and bag of fashion. Good luck young warrior! You will be forgotten.

This video would have been improved by her medicating her dog while she addressed us, by blowing smoke into a paper bag and then putting it over the dogs head.

I found this post from GDGD's post of the same post.

I posted a follow-up video from the same companies, it's pretty interesting, hallelujah, but bring a paper bag.

http://videosift.com/video/NorthStudio-360-Mindbending-Chopper-Tour

Thanks GDGD! I posted a follow-up to this video at

http://videosift.com/video/NorthStudio-360-Mindbending-Chopper-Tour

The video is by the same companies but the video format is err... a little different. You may want to bring a paper bag along for the journey.

It's not "you're racist", it's "you didn't think".

It’s actually quite the opposite. I’ve thought about this topic about 10 levels deeper than everyone else. They just don’t like it because I’m daring to bring up politically incorrect, uncomfortable truth.

You went on about how responsible home ownership says something about a person...implying it qualifies you as good.

Responsible home ownership does say good things about a person. It does not mean you are a good person, but it does generally show a person is good at managing their finances.

Taking away someone's right to vote because they did something society doesn't like is a different issue, and you're confusing the two, IMO.

No I’m not. I’m applying the idea fairly, and that disturbs some people. Is it not logical to say that the people who took out subprime loans they knew they could not afford did “something to society” far more harmful than the collective actions of U.S. mass murderers? So, why are people mentally comfortable with limiting the voting rights of murderers (who do comparatively little damage to overall society) but are uncomfortable limiting the voting rights of bad borrowers who cause far more societal damage?

IMO it's a bad idea to give government lots of powers to disqualify people from voting. It's WAY too easy for it to be abused, modified in stupid ways, etc. It's a serious slippery slope without all the normal exaggeration the phrase "slippery slope" usually comes with.

When the full public has unlimited voting rights, the eventual dynamic result is that the primary concern of the voter becomes the claiming & retention of personal benefits. The resulting loose, debt-heavy fiscal policy collapses the government. Is that not a “slippery slope” at least as alarming as the slippery slope of limiting voter rights? Which slippery slope do you choose? Regardless, the left has routinely pooh-poohed the entire ‘slippery slope’ argument. The opposition to Obama’s health care bill was based on ‘slippery slopes’ of death panels and socialism but it was mocked as ridiculous. Why is the ‘slippery slope’ so absurd when it is applied to leftist political philosophy, but so pertinent on voting rights?

Voting needs to be easier, not harder.

Easier? Sure. But more restricted too. A good start would be to require a valid U.S. birth certificate, and current photo ID at the site of voting.

This is abhorant, fascist thinking. Godwin be-damned if I can't call a spade a spade. I normally ignore your comments, but this latest set of talking points needs to be called out for the bull that it is.

I think that your hyperbolic overreaction suggests that your policy of self-recusal should be reinstated, because this entry into the crucible of debate is woefully inadequate. Clearly you are unable to control your emotions when grappling with issues, and therefore you should quit the field to spare both yourself and others from your abecedarian efforts. Or you could just go breathe into a paper bag for a bit and come back and try again. Your call.

What's different is that the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.

When the left loses in the court of the national discourse, they do not just shrug and try to ‘get facts and a point of view out’. They demonize, attack, insult, and slander. When that fails they dictate by fiat against the will of the people. In short, they take away people’s civil rights when those people use their freedom in ways they disapprove. So your statement is patently false. The left is only interested in ‘civil rights’ insofar as it advances their pet agendas.

Liberal electoral reforms are always aimed at making it easier for people to vote, and growing the percentage of the populace who vote.

You need to correct your position, because it ignores a lot. The left always finds a way to make it easier for the people it WANTS to vote, but always seems to oppose easy voting for groups it opposes. Regardless, the whole civil rights argument is a cheap rhetorical dodge. Nations routinely monitor, restrict, and regulate voting rights. Requiring vital documents, proof of citizenship, and basic intellectual capacity is not some sort of crazy, dictatorial power grab. It happens all the time in every civilized country.

Mostly these days that's making sure there are paper trails for electronic voting machines, but it's also making sure the people working the polling places are treating everyone the same. Curiously, the right always finds a reason to oppose every one of the above.

I disagree. The left that is the routine, documented, proven opponent of a rigorous, fair voting process.