Congratulations! Your video, Conservatives VS KKK : Spot The Difference, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 345 Badge!

Your video, Conservatives VS KKK : Spot The Difference, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 312 Badge!

That wasn't a bear, that was a troll. It's easy to mistake, but you can spot the difference at 3:10.

Lmao. You're so ignorant it hurts.

"All was cool".. BECAUSE YOU'RE WHITE! Duh.

@_@ omg it's not that difficult a concept to understand.

Let's play a game. Spot the difference:

Sandra Bland - a black women - was violently detained.

Her head smashed into the ground & held down with a knee in her back by two officers. She was held in jail for 3 days before her mysterious death.

Her crime? Failure to signal while changing lanes.

The Charleston shooter - a white male - was detained & arrested without incident.

He - a wanted, armed & dangerous criminal - was handled gingerly.

Approached calmly by officers who almost immediately holster their weapons.
He's politely removed from the vehicle & arrested.
He's even brought fast food as to not violate his rights.

His crime? The hate-based mass-murder of 9 people.


Tell me, Bob.
Can you spot the difference?

Do you really think the media or 5-8% of blacks & their behavior "influenced" the cops in Sandra Bland's arrest?

If so, why didn't the 5-8% of lazy stupid savage whites influence the arrest of racist roof?

Do you really think that white people have absolutely NO advantage in: getting a job, a loan, or not being immediately brutalized by cops?


It's okay. Your stupid, racist, circular-logic answer doesn't matter.
Just want you to think about that for while.

@VoodooV Like I've been saying all along, your posts are mostly attempts at intimidation. I enjoy answering some of your questions, because it helps me question my beliefs, something I think is constructive and that you seriously shouldn't be afraid of. We are all supposedly looking for the truth anyways. All this could be settled by answering my simple question, whether you'd agree or not, it wouldn't even necessarily be an argument against gun control. I was pointing out the apparent conflict between wanting people to be more responsible by taking their freedoms away, when taking their freedoms away might not contribute to making them responsible people in the long run. An unpresumptuous suggestion meant to be taken as food for thought.

Instead, you resort to being juvenile and making fun of me, while writing huge posts with my entire posts quoted afterwards as an attempt at making me turn away in horror at the sight of a huge wall of text. Sure, it takes me time to sift through all of it to see what really matters. You're trying to muscle your way through, and it's a waste of everyone's time. I actually take the time to make my posts short and to the point, did you notice that? I happen to think it's a good habit to have some consideration for the reader, why am I not surprised you have none for me?

So, instead of appreciating that I don't waste your time by making an effort at being succinct, you accuse me of avoiding some of your arguments. It's true, I avoid a few of them because I think they're irrelevant, it's called being selective. Now I know that was a bad idea. I'm terribly sorry. I won't do it anymore. I will take the time to answer the most points I can to the best of my ability, and if that my makes my posts tiresomely long and wastes my time, so be it.

I bet you're trying to flood me with words because this isn't about any truth, is it? It's about discouraging and distracting me from something. Ever heard of picking your fights? It's about being reasonable about yours and other people's times. After all, I do assume you have a life outside of this internet topic on videosift, don't you? Anyway, let's get to it:

- About emotional manipulation, you FAILED to prove it, and here's why:

When you obey traffic laws, you are being coerced if there is coercion as consequence for not obeying them. Will you get arrested? Will you get your car, which is your property, impounded if you disobey? Then yes, they are coercive laws.

When you decide not kill someone because the law will coerce you if you do, you're being coerced into not killing, even if you freely decide not to kill out of good morals and empathy for fellow human beings, the option of killing is always there in reality (you can always kill anyone if you really want to), but not legally. If you kill, you're under the threat of going to prison. The positive or negative language seems completely irrelevant, what matters is what happens when you disobey the law. If coercion ensues, the law is coercive, or, more accurately, its enforcement. I'm not actually making the distinction right now if it's a rule related to coercion itself (a rule that makes coercion more or less likely to happen), just pointing out the irrelevance of your distinction between negative and positive language.

Now, I have to admit that there is divergence when it comes to defining coercion, but there is no emotional content here as far as I can tell. I'm using it in the sense that people have a right to their life, property and freedoms, and when you take or threaten to take away any of those things (and have the power to do so), THAT is coercion. There is no emotion here, I am offended that you would think that I would resort to that, because I don't even have to. Coercion has a meaning to me, I'm just using the concept as it is. If there is an emotional content, SHOW ME what emotion that is. Up until now, you have FAILED to do so.

- About requiring things before freedoms are granted, I think you FAILED to make your point, here's why:

To type boring senseless posts on the internet, you require a keyboard. Maybe, if you could type with voice recognition, like I do, you wouldn't need a keyboard, but what matters is that you use something to type or produce characters that will be submitted to the videosift website and become a useless post. So, for the sake of argument, let's call this an "actual physical requirement".

Now, with a gun to your head, if I require that you, VoodooV, jump through actual flaming hula-hoops positioned vertically on an intricate obstacle course before typing in your videosift comments, the world would be a better place (at least videosift would). However, my requirements would be arbitrary in the sense that it imposes something not actually physically necessary to enjoy the hypothetical "freedom to post inane ramblings on videosift" (we are assuming it's a right), can you spot the difference?

So, requiring things that are not necessary to enjoy a freedom is not something that makes the freedom better or is in any way justifiable just because history is littered with the precedent of assholes like kings and despots requiring stupid things before we can enjoy freedoms that we supposedly already have. When it comes to guns, a law says we have a right to bear them. Any laws that restrict that supposed right are infringing on the freedom that comes from having that right.

- About the claim that people will be less responsible if they have less freedom:

"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."

"Over time, when we take people's freedoms away, they tend to be less responsible about the decisions we're not letting them make. There's no way they can learn about any different (good or bad) outcomes related to decisions they couldn't make, and they can't be held responsible for them either, so they can hardly become more responsible."

- About your reduction to absurdity claim that removing all the rules would make us "SUPER-Responsible":

"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."

The problem with removing all rules is that, without rules related to coercion, people would be too subjected to the threat or actual coercion from other people around them, society would be less civilized. Would that make them more responsible? That's a good question. On one side, they would have a lot more responsibilities if they had to worry about their own lives and safety every frickin' day, and all the terrible worries that comes with the unstable chaos of anarchy. However, given that they would enjoy less freedoms due to the constant coercion of others, they would likely end up being a lot less responsible, because they would have far less choices.

That's why I took the time to explain the difference between rules related to coercion and rules that just infringe on freedoms.

- About your examples of requirements before freedoms and rights are granted, here's a list of your "numerous examples" and my reply to each of them:

VoodooV: "You have the freedom to go to college..."
VoodooV: "You have the freedom to have a certain job..."

"Going to college or getting a job are not things people are entitled to (supposedly), there are no rights involved, so no freedom is being denied."

VoodooV: "You have the freedom to imbibe alcohol....IF you are a certain age and can demonstrate that you can use it safely"

I don't know about using it safely (what does that mean?), but regarding age restriction, I don't agree with those laws. I know, very "liberal" of me, but I think children are the responsibility of their parents, so it's a law that steps into parenting territory.

VoodooV: "And according to the right, you have the freedom to vote..."

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?

"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"!"

VoodooV: "And having a gun, or a car, has a significant risk to infringe upon other's freedoms so it's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate proficiency and safety before using said items."

A driver's license is not about owning or using a car, but about driving in public venues. I could be wrong, but we don't need a license to drive a car in our own backyards, do we?

Simply owning a gun, on the other hand, not only isn't a violation of anything, it supposedly provides protection against these violations.

- About me supposedly contradicting myself, saying "there are no rules for us talking", then proposing a dare:

Did I shoot you in the face when you failed my dare? So I guess it's not the kind of rule in the sense that I didn't threaten to coerce you if you failed it. Do you understand what kind of rule I was talking about? Do you even understand what a contradiction means, or are you just taking advantage that not everyone that reads your posts knows exactly what you're referring to make yourself look smart even though you can't point out a contradiction if it rested flat in your deepest held political beliefs?

On the subject of contradictions, strictly speaking, there's no contradiction between calling you juvenile and being juvenile myself, even if I did so afterwards, and in retaliation, to give you a taste of it.

Ooooooooh... must be very embarrassing for you not to know what a contradiction stands for.

Here's your entire post quoted, because, why not?

I've been trying to spot the difference between Ricky Gervais, and his role in Extras. No luck so far.

What a dick.

Bible not been refuted, eh?

The Bible actually refutes itself in the very first section of the very first book by giving two separate and contradictory accounts of the creation story.

Here is a summary for those too lazy to look it up for themselves.

Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 summary:
God creates the heavens and the earth. He separates the light from the darkness (whatever that means). He creates a dome to separate Earth water from space water. He creates land, fruit and vegetation. God makes 2 lights; the sun for a day light and the moon for night light. He creates water life, bird life, sea monsters and animals (all at once without any type of evolution), and then tells them all to fuck the shit out of each other. God creates humans in their (why is this plural?) image and gives them dominion over the other beasties, and then tells them to bone up a storm too. God tells the humans and animals to help themselves to all the plants, fruits and vegies they like (but makes no mention of eating meat). On the seventh day, God orders a pizza, smokes some weed and plays Xbox all day. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

Done deal, right!? But wait, there's more...

Genesis 2:4-2:22 summery
On the day that God created the heavens and the earth, back before there were plants, rain and people to work the land, God forms a man from dust on the ground and breathes life into his nostrils. After that, he creates plantlife, the garden of Eden and a tree of knowledge of good and evil. God puts the man in the garden of Eden and tells him not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Then God creates all of the animals and tells the man to name them all. Finally, he creates a woman out of the man's rib.

Can you spot the differences in these two contradictory creation myths?
-The first myth spans 7 days, the second spans one day.
-The plants and animals are created before man in the first myth, and after in the second.
-In the first myth humans are created all at once, in the second the man is made first - the woman second.

Did God forget to proofread?

It is theorized that these two competing creation stories - which were passed from generation to generation through oral tradition before being written down - were both so popular, that the creators of the version of Genesis that ended up in the book that we now call 'the Bible' decided to include both.

Another interesting discussion is how the Bible was assembled from many stories written by many different people over hundreds of years, and even after it was codified, was (and still is) edited and translated and manipulated, which explains its many shifts in mood, tone, and content. If you read the Bible as literature, it is full of some great stories. The stories of David and Lot are juicy. Ecclesiastes was written by a total nihalist and is pretty bad ass. Revelation is fun too, in its own sociopathic way.

hmmmm...

compare
http://www.phillyd.tv/wp-content/uploads/noid-megan_fox_fail.jpg

to this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Megan_Fox_in_Berlin_2009.jpg

this is not my regular type of topic but i'm just being curious: do you spot the difference? bra? operation?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'mitchell, webb, look, sketch, advert, men, women, spot the difference' to 'mitchell, webb, look, sketch, advert, men, women, less clammy, spot the difference' - edited by calvados

wow..... just wow...... They aren't THAT bad lol. I have a tattoo in the same spot, only difference is its about half a foot in length and about 4 inches in width (and no I don't have cankles lol it goes up my calf a bit), and 80 percent of it is solid black (my kitty cat), now that one hurt but geez hers would have been a cake walk! She sounds like I did when I gave birth! I am wondering if that was her momma in the video trying to prove a point lol.

Nickelback - Spot the difference:
http://www.thewebshite.net/nickelback.htm

I'd certainly agree with you, Dag, it's just that tiny part where he denounces blu-ray disks compared to DVDs; either he's in a serious effing need of specs or his only display is smaller than 9", because one can easily spot the difference between the 1080 pixels of a blu-ray/hddvd movie and what.. the 272 or whatnot of an average DVD? in short: the elite rapid aussie speech aside, you'd do well to spot complete bollocks in what he has to say.

that said, I do not support the ps3 in any way. x360 4evah!!!~