I imaged a comparison of this video (science) and of one that takes place on a stage that involved someone yelling "HEALLLLL, HEALLLL" and then someone getting smacked in the forehead and falling over. (religion). = )

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

[Smacks head] Of course! Thanks for the elegant solution. OK, show's over – all fixed now.

I'd usually agree with you, but some childhood accidents/events are just going to happen (and from a developmental standpoint, probably -need- to happen). At least in this case, he wasn't hitting anything hard enough to do any actual damage. He wasn't even crying, just rubbing his head and looking confused.

In my experience every older brother has smacked the back of a younger brother's head harder than this. Which could be argued to be worse, being intentional rather than accidental.

He would be surprised to find himself there, certainly, but 'gob smacked'? ...only if god smacked him right in the gob. ;-)
Some people are not terrified by the unexpected/unknown (and I think that should be part of the test people must pass to become cops, btw), and some don't simply cower when faced with authority/power.

Your supposition that all people would be completely 'gob smacked' to face 'god' seemingly denies what most Christians believe, that you can 'defend' your life/actions/choices to god to get into heaven...like it's an American style court case, not just divine judgment.

I think many would be impressed by the awesome power 'he' wields, and more surprised by the fact that 'he' exists at all, but still completely disappointed with the lack of forethought/responsibility/caring/love/or empathy shown in the wielding of that immense power, and they might say so clearly. Fry always seemed like that kind of 'not shy' guy to me.

I agree to a certain extent but I'd say you're certainly making assumptions about newtboy and his dog, as his follow up post shows. It also smacks a bit of victim blaming.

Surely the best course of action is to acknowledge that both side of the equation could do with some work. It's great that your dog is well trained, but it wouldn't be an issue if people understood that it's not always OK to do what you want with someone else's pet.

I always ask the owner before interacting with a dog at all. If there's any issue then the owner should tell you first but some people just don't give them a chance or the owners are too timid to say something. My kids will definitely know that dogs are great but to ask first before saying hello. Yes, the dog should be well trained enough that they can cope with any interaction at any time, but I'm taking the sensible route of assuming that not everyone with a dog is an expert dog trainer...

Egads Man!!
Smacking us in the face with this.

=Ratings out of 10=
Video Quality: 0.5
Content: 0
Content (for 7 year old girls): 3
Editing: 1
Music: 1.5
No way I can vote for this..., but then I think you knew this when you posted it....

Meh, I don't like "art" that makes me uncomfortable. Smacks too much of intellectual sadism.

It's not just dogs that can be taught with this method. Most animals respond quickly to such an approach. I've even heard that it works with conservatives, although sometimes you have to smack their noses first to get their attention.

I can't tell who's comment you're referencing with your first comment. I hope not me, cops are all individuals in my eyes, even if it may not seem like it sometimes because they are also a 'team'.

I see your comment as an issue of respect needing to be earned, and also being a two way street. When police over react, or act disrespectfully insulting to a perceived insult (even actual insult), it denies them the respect tomorrow that they are upset about not receiving today. I think most of us expect them to be the professional in any situation and understand they just have to deal with some assholes, not devolve to the level of those they are disgusted by. EDIT: People in many professions have to deal with dicks daily, but only one profession typically responds with indignant violence.
I did see the mans dancing as a dick move, just not one that deserved the reaction it received. A stern "HEY! Get the fuck out of here!" would have done nicely from the cop in the van, and may have earned some respect instead of losing some.

I agree with your last statement, but let's think, who got smacked?

Again, assuming that all cops act this way. Untrue.

It's their daily grind that wears down the humanity. Lot of nutcases and truly dangerous people live in NYC, the progressive paradise. Cops have to deal with them everyday and don't assume you would be any different under the same circumstances.

You can only turn the other cheek so many times. If someone smacked you in the face, even lightly, then again, and again and again, eventually your pacifism would evaporate and you would strike out with everything in you.

great comment on the racism by numbers video!
i truly struggle to understand people who either willingly or unwittingly over-simplify complex cultural systems.

it smacks of comfortable ignorance.

racism is evolving to classism and while not necessarily a new dynamic,it is one that goes against the very heart of human progress and ideology.

quid pro quo....
certainly not the ordinary citizen,but then who?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_prison_state_of_america_20141228

a frighteningly cynical but also quite probable consequence of the corporate state.
human greed juxtaposed with apathy and indifference.

@bobknight33
you are confusing a political argument with a scientific one.

as @bcglorf has pointed out,the science is already In and established.the debate is on the relative parameters i.e: how much/little the affects will manifest.
so while it has been established their IS climate change and man HAS affected that change.the debate is the varying degrees and the level of impact.

so we know there will be a global effect,the debate is HOW and WHEN it will manifest,and on a smaller scale,just how much influence humankind is responsible.

some predict an extinction level catastrophe,while other predictions are not quite as apocalyptic,but the debate on whether or not climate change is real..is over.

because that is a scientific debate.

now in the political arena,whose job is to obfuscate any relevant facts to muddy the argument to propel the interests of extremely monied and powerful interests,they create a faux debate to give the appearance that the debate is still ongoing and the science is not settled.

which is exactly what this video is addressing.
remember,they dont have to win the argument.they just have to make a reasonable sounding argument..even if based on bullshit...to make you think.."well,...maybe" and they GOTCHA!

so you can make this a liberal vs conservative argument if you wish,but i would just point out that you playing the game exactly they way they have set it up.to manipulate you.

as for your assertion of "liberal owned media".
dude...
stop parroting that tired old trope that does not hold up to one minute of scrutiny.you are literally doing the plutocrats work FOR them.
every outlet of media in the united states is owned and operated by FIVE companies.

FIVE.

and not a single one could even remotely be considered "liberal",because that does not serve their interests.

this debate is simply NOT a political debate,it is a scientific debate.
plain and simple...learn to recognize the difference buddy.

and stop being a tool for fuck sakes.../slap
you are better than that.

and just a side note,for my own personal pleasure and enjoyment:
@dannym3141 you are my fucking hero brother! between you and @newtboy i struggle to hold onto my cynicism around both of you.

you guys give me hope.

now lets go grab a smoke @bobknight33 cuz these pansies wont let me smoke inside and i have to do it on the patio and they keep trying to get me to drink that godawful "redbull" when crystal meth does a much better job.

sheesh..kids these days.

ok..enough ranting for today and smacking bob around.
ya'all stay awesome.

Wow. Surreal. At 0:21 there's a bang that seems to correspond to the halves of the tree smacking back together. It might be a coincidence with something that's happening off-screen, but it does seem to convey the magnitude of the murmuration.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. Part of me wants to smack the shite out of the cheeky cunt behind the camera. The guy sounds genuinely distressed and the only thing the dick with the camera is thinking is how many hits this will get on YouTube.

To a certain extent, but unfortunately a charismatic (or dictatorial) leadership, or even parents passing on their belief systems to their children, can create or enforce ideals that can shape society. Many people still adhere to religion because "that's the way it's always been", not because the religion actually fits their personal ethics...

In general, I do actually agree with you in regards to the concept that secularity tends to lead to enlightenment, but there are plenty of secular countries that are authoritarian/despotic (North Korea being a shining example), violent and considerably backwards compared to countries which have a high proportion of religious people and freedom. Unfortunately, enlightenment leads to arrogance as well.

The continual push by the media/politicians etc to classify Muslims as a homogenous whole smacks more of an attempt to play on xenophobia and racism than any factual evidence.

Particularly when the enlightened country making the most noise about it has "In God We Trust" printed on their currency. Compound that with provoking and polarising moderate Muslims by marginalising and insulting them? Enlightenment does not preclude gross stupidity.

A simple look at the US (secular mind you) shows stark differences between the north and the south, red states and blue states etc. You're proposing that 1.5 bn people (that would be ~5 times more people than the entire population of the US) spread across most countries in the world are somehow tightly aligned purely because they share a religion that is as varied as any other in the world?

And the mean truth? The arrogance and presumption of "enlightened neighbours" are part of the reasons why certain countries are as they are...

Iran is a classic example. The US (all enlightened and shit) engineers the coup that deposes a democratically elected Prime Minister hailed as a leading champion of secular democracy. And when the Shah was overthrown, it was by fundamentalists lead by Ayatollah Khomeini, ushering in an era of strict theocracy and an abiding hatred of the US.

Your last paragraph highlights the problem perfectly. We have two media reporters, deliberately or ignorantly, disseminating false information which would probably lead to discrimination against Muslims. How ethical is it to incite an entire country to hate over the actions of a tiny percentage of the whole? How ethical is it to ignore humanitarian disasters in countries which have no strategic or natural resource value (and places where no white people have been beheaded)?

And when presented with empirical truth, how ethical is it to refuse to accept it?