search results matching tag: uncomfortable

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (152)     Sift Talk (10)     Blogs (19)     Comments (1000)   

Enough already, Eric3579 -- let us celebrate you! (Happy Talk Post)

WeedandWeirdness says...

@eric3579, I told you how much you are loved here, and I know this may make you uncomfortable, but take a deep breath and enjoy your moment, cause it's all about the love!! You have become one of my closest friends, and I am really lucky!! I may not be able to stay a part of the Sift, but am happy to stay and see everyone celebrate you!!!

Teacher introduces herself to class in a unique fashion

A two-year-old resolves a moral dilemma

gorillaman says...

This is the point of thought experiments. They're not supposed to be unsolvable zen koans. They're supposed to help you identify and examine the fundamentals of your whatever philosophical model for a given topic. This one is obviously doing its job, because when you can construct statements like 'perfect certainty makes inaction as culpable as action' then you already have a richer understanding of ethics than say 95% of the population.

Many people give the opposite answer to yours; they don't think you should take an innocent life deliberately, even if it is for a greater good. Now, are these stupid people? Yes. And you'll find more and more of them when you recast the question in increasingly uncomfortable terms: Should you shove a fat man in front of the train to slow it down, knowing the five will then have time to escape? Should a doctor harvest the vital organs of a perfectly healthy patient to save five otherwise healthy people who happen to be in need of various organ transplants?

Real world solutions and complications to these questions are irrelevant. Petri dishes don't exist in nature but you don't slap them out of biologists hands and yell at them to do real science in the real world. And isn't the fact that so many people would decline to assassinate baby Hitler informative in itself?

Babymech said:

I always thought this 'problem' was bullshit - not because I dreamed of being some special snowflake 'outside the box' little shit who just wants to bypass the difficulty in question, but because the answer is so obvious. If you have perfect certainty that you can either save 1 life or 5 lives, then that's the same as choosing to kill 1 person or 5 persons. Perfect certainty makes inaction as culpable as action. It's only in reality, where there's uncertainty, that you can balk at taking action.

In the same way I find the moral dilemma of killing Hitler as a baby to be ridiculous. If you, as a time traveler from 2016, balk at the idea of going back to 1889 to kill baby Hitler, but you're fine with going back to 1939 to kill adult Hitler and maybe prevent WW2, then you essentially want hundreds of thousands of people to die in concentration camps just to make you feel good about your murderous action. Ridiculous.

Guilty Dog

eric3579 says...

Videos of animals cowering always make me uncomfortable. I always assume they cower because they have been physically punished. I have no idea if this is true but makes me think of what a child does when they are physically disciplined/abused.

Jim Jefferies on Bill Cosby and Rape Jokes

ChaosEngine says...

I have to say, I'm with @bareboards2 on this one.

I don't have a problem with joking about any topic, as long as it follows two simple rules:
1: don't target a genuine victim and
2: be funny

This broke both of those.
With rape in particular, the more "edgy" the material is, the funnier it needs to be and frankly, this was easily the weakest part of that set. It just wasn't that funny.

It didn't come close to the sublime brilliance of Louis CKs pedophile bit, for example.

Which is a shame, because I think Jim is really funny. The rest of that set KILLED.

I mean, he did a whole bit about thinking he'd given his son autism and how he realised he was slightly autistic and it was hilarious.

But this whole section... eh, it just felt like making the joke for the sake of it. It was that awful Rodney Dangerfield style of "insult insult, just kidding, hey you're all right!" comedy.

If you want to see an example of a great, REALLY uncomfortable bit of humour, watch Reginald D Hunter.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Reginal-D-Hunter-Women-Drivers-and-F-You-Movies

Donald Trump Gave Charlie Sheen Fake Platinum Cufflinks - Th

harlequinn says...

Yes, it is good for the soul. I'm glad you believe that.

Actually, the first two comments were, paraphrasing here but, "Trump is horrible" and "Charlie Sheen is the voice of reason (and that's whack)".

Your interpretation is that I'm negative and mean. Pointing out truths or untruths, whilst often uncomfortable for many, is not negative or mean. It's not a new, an old, or any low at all. It is a neutral observation.

I've not posted more than one video because I don't see the need to. I only posted the first one to explore the mechanism involved in posting. I've got plenty of material posted by others to look at and comment on, and not nearly enough time in the day to do everything I'd like to do.

I'll tell you what I see as negative and mean. The constant degradation of other human beings because one doesn't agree with their politics. And that includes both Trump and Hillary.

WeedandWeirdness said:

Laughter is good for the soul.

Harlequinn, it's The Graham Norton Show, and a silly story Charlie Sheen told. I was surprised that Charlie Sheen is even being booked, because is he even relevant anymore? Then he tells this story. Perhaps to be more relevant.

No one said, "See, Trump is awful, and Charlie Sheen thinks so, it must be true!"

Why be negative and mean? Sinking to a new low...come on, really?
Why haven't you posted more than one video? Honestly curious, not being spiteful, but you must have your reasons.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" ...

Rashida Jones coaches Stephen on how to be a Feminist

newtboy says...

One
more
total
communication
failure.
I wrote that there would only be an obligation for them to also help men IF they want to claim that 'feminism' is about pure equality of the sexes and not just working for women's rights, which is what had been contended. It was a reply to a claim, not a suggestion.
Please try reading again.

Sexual objectification is sexist, even if it's objectifying a man. What do you think the word means?
from dictionary.com
Sexist - relating to, involving, or fostering discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender

This is the exact thing I've come to dislike about 'feminism'. It seems you're saying his objectification and devaluation isn't up to par with the objectification and devaluation many women suffer from, so it's not "actual sexism", doesn't matter, and he should just shut up about it and quit his whining.....but if a woman said the exact same words about being uncomfortable being required to do the exact same actions there would be (and has been) a serious discussion of how to solve that disturbing sexist trend and a move to fire and shame the disgusting pig director/photographer that forced her to do something she was uncomfortable doing, and if someone dared to say her issues were minor, outrage and attack.

ant (Member Profile)

A Humourous Break Down Of The Universe

BREAKING NEWS: Trump Makes Women Uncomfortable

If Meat Eaters Acted Like Vegans

transmorpher says...

The warplane is designed to kill, but who is it killing - is it killing an evil dictator in order to save innocents? It might be on a peace keeping mission to discourage any killing. If it the warplane is killing only people who would otherwise be killing the innocent, then it's a tool used for good, it's saving more lives than it's taking, and more importantly it's saving lives that are more important to maintaining a civilized society.
I'd even say that it would be less moral to not build the warplane and let innocents die through inaction, when the consequences are well known.

Even further down the chain, killing isn't inherently bad, there are plenty justifiable reasons to kill someone.

It's the same with veganism -making choices which are less harmful, not necessarily perfect.


Non smokers are definitely way better people than smokers. Especially given that 2nd and even 3rd hand smoke causes cancer. Even if smoking only harmed the smoker, it's still a strange idea to be harming yourself. Perhaps they lack the appreciation of how lucky they are to be alive. I mean the odds of being born are like winning the lotto, let alone being born healthy, being born in this day and age, in a civilized country, being born to the dominate species, being born on the only planet that seems to have developed life. Some people have rough starts to life, but harming themselves isn't going to make it better, just shorter.


I agree that everyone is capable of making good moral stances, you've obviously drawn the line somewhere (otherwise you'd be going all Genghis Khan on everyone). But where the line is drawn is tends to be influenced a lot by misleading information and lack of information. And that makes it very hard to make logically sound choices. It's even harder when in order to understand the real impact means having to watch footage of animal cruelty. Most people find it confronting and uncomfortable at best, so it's easier to put it away, not think about it and continue consuming.

I know most people are moral, but if they don't act on it, it doesn't mean much to the puppies being strayed in the eyes with chemicals, or to the piglets being slammed into the concrete floor for the crime of being born male.


Regardless of how you categorize it, analyze it, or philosophize it, this always remains true: Animals feel and respond to pain, they will do their best to avoid suffering, and they have a will to live.

Mordhaus said:

You can dance all you like, but you are still hypocritical. A war plane was never designed as anything other than a device to KILL. A hammer might have been used to kill, but it was not designed for it.

So, I am not trying to say you are less moral, I am just trying to get you to SEE that you are just as capable of making distinctions regarding your values as we are. We are all the sum of our parts, we choose moral stances and we choose to avoid others we consider to be less necessary. In choosing to follow the vegan dogma, you unfortunately have put yourself in a lifestyle that usually carries at least a thin veneer of "I am better than you", when in fact you have merely chosen to restrict your diet. It doesn't make you any better or worse than someone who chooses to quit smoking, or perhaps to only ride public transportation.

As far as winning, I have no intention of winning because this is an unwinnable discussion. I will neither be able to persuade you that you are being selectively moral and elitist, nor will you be able to persuade me that mankind should cease to partake in the flesh of other creatures (if we choose to). The most I can do is call you on your comments, you can take or leave my opinions the same way I would do yours.

I won't resort to a catchphrase like bacon, but the end result is the same, futile as you said.

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Women Sportswriters do the Mean Tweets thing

eric3579 says...

I suspect that how a viewer considers the sincerity of these men may correlate to the empathy a viewer has. Just a guess although i could be completely wrong. I'm no psychologist although i find i'm playing one constantly I for one assumed this was extremely uncomfortable to do regardless of cameras.

Dog eagerly chases chicken ahead while pulling cart 4 owner.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists