SDGundamX
Member Profile
Member Since: 2007-03-02
Last Power Points used: 2008-11-15 • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1 • Get More Power Points Now
Last Power Points used: 2008-11-15 • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1 • Get More Power Points Now
Comments
Subscribe
Actionpack Videos Submitted by SDGundamXNavigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (0)
- personal queue videos (14)
- sifted videos (18)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (0)
- Sift Talk posts
- discarded posts
- killed videos
- dead/deadpool videos (0)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
- group playlists
Member Stats
Rank: 372
Rating:
30 star points
Votes Received: 436
Votes Cast: 587
Comments Posted: 540 • browse
Comments Applauded: 10
Sifted Videos: 18
Sift Talk Posts: 2
Dead Pool Fixes: 3
Profile Views: 6244
Rating:
30 star pointsVotes Received: 436
Votes Cast: 587
Comments Posted: 540 • browse
Comments Applauded: 10
Sifted Videos: 18
Sift Talk Posts: 2
Dead Pool Fixes: 3
Profile Views: 6244
Highest Ranked Comments
Member's Highest Rated Videos
In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Not sure what you were referring to here. I was referring to the Canadians I know, not mass media or anything. But even in mass media I think you'd see more Canadians poking fun at the U.S. than vice versa.
The truth is, most Americans don't think twice about Canada. Thanks to our public education system, there's a large portion of us that probably thinks Canada's just another U.S. state, like Puerto Rico or Guam. That's why they're always bemused by the Canadians' jokes.
no, there's no sound. maybe he said "shit, sorry, sorry, sorry, er, is he ok? hey son, don't hit people". did you see him in court saying "fucking spastic gotta be shown he can't kick my son, beeeehatch"
you have no idea. what you can't see/hear is maybe more important than what you can see.
i see him (in front of my own eyes) using the body language of somebody who just did something instinctively and now kinda regrets it and hopes everything is gonna be ok, knows he did wrong, wants to leave the area so he doesn't get in trouble, but knows he can't just run away, but still feels justified in lashing out to protect his son. that's just a guess though, i wouldn't be as sure as you are about it.
do you see him do anything violent whatsoever after the initial punch?
by the way, i haven't thrown a punch in anger since i was 12 years old, and that was the first one. i am not exactly advocating chaos on the streets. i just think i understand that if someone scary comes near your son and tries to hurt him, you might react differently to how you expect. if you are a policeman you are more expected to keep that in check than if you are a father.
In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Do you see him checking to see if the kid is okay after the guy goes down? I sure don't. He's too busy standing over the guy and arguing with the mom.
Amazed at your inability to see things right in front of your eyes.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
amazed at your powers of assumption from a low res silent clip of total strangers with unknown mental problems.
In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
I believe all people have the responsibility to act calmly under pressure and not resort to immediate violence, regardless of profession. The dad didn't even check to see if the kid was okay--he was much more concerned with teaching the guy a lesson and standing over him even after he was KO'd. For that, he earns nothing but contempt from me.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
>> ^SDGundamX:
I'm willing to bet my life savings that if it were a cop throwing the punch in this vid.....
Oh, you mean a trained professional who knows how to deal with these situations, can act calmy under pressure, is not related to the victim of the attack, and is paid to serve the community...
I see the comparison.
In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
I believe all people have the responsibility to act calmly under pressure and not resort to immediate violence, regardless of profession. The dad didn't even check to see if the kid was okay--he was much more concerned with teaching the guy a lesson and standing over him even after he was KO'd. For that, he earns nothing but contempt from me.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
>> ^SDGundamX:
I'm willing to bet my life savings that if it were a cop throwing the punch in this vid.....
Oh, you mean a trained professional who knows how to deal with these situations, can act calmy under pressure, is not related to the victim of the attack, and is paid to serve the community...
I see the comparison.
In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Just saw this comment. I'm interested why you think Socialism and the Constitution can't co-exist. The Constitution allows for multiple people to own the same property (otherwise corporations could not exist) so why would it be against the Constitution for the government and the people to collectively own and operate a system such as, say, health care? Additionally, the Constitution doesn't explicitly restrict against a redistribution of wealth. You could even argue it actually encourages it through the General Welfare clause in Article 1, Section 8. So again, why couldn't Socialism and the Constitution co-exist?
In reply to this comment by rgroom1:
The constitution and the bill of rights are very adamant about defending individual rights, individual freedoms, individual choices, so long as they do not interfere with an individuals "Life, Liberty,and Happiness (or property, if you like Locke)" which are defined as inalienable.
Property - everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights
Socialism - a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.
Now, defenses aside, the constitution, the guiding force of the United States, seems very very explicitly against many of the policies that are reveled here on the sift.
If you feel that it is outdated, then maybe you should begin a campaign to disband the constitution. But I, and many many others will not allow it.
In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Don't know what happened, but I hope to see you back on the Sift soon. Enjoy your time on the outside.
Best wishes,
SDGundamX
I know the laws, and they are quiet complicated when it comes to officers (even private security suits) and potential violation of property, it was part of last line of work.
In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
>> ^jwray:
Life doesn't start at conception, it's a continuous process that started 3 billion years ago. Only sentient life forms have the moral status of persons. A fertilized egg is not sentient.
This is by far the best argument I've heard for the moral grounds for abortion (and also extends to stem cell research).
I've been a long-time lurker (probably more that five years) and never imagined that my first sift would be on such a dry subject.
In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Welcome to the Sift. I was reading your comments on the spelling vid's thread. Impressively intelligent and articulate. Also nice counter-Sift vid that you posted. Good to have you on board.
For someone who apparently loves sarcasm, you don't seem to understand it very well. Why the downvote on the comment, chief?
(Referring to this comment)
If that comment offended you in some way (I can't imagine how), I apologize.
Under ordinary circumstances, I'm certainly going to downvote a comment that promotes voting without watching the video for whatever reasons. While this should not include sarcastic reasons, sarcasm doesn't always translate over text, and I just flat out missed it this time. I'm going to blame an annoyed state of mind brought on by watching too many political videos, but in reality, I just dropped the ball on this one. My apologies for misunderstanding.
lithuanians and londoners use the double negative, but the BBC doesn't.
but...
i do think it is "uneducated" to speak only in your "mother" accent.
learn a different accent and use that for business. Why should business adapt to 10923782937 accents? that makes no sense. educate yourself, learn how to talk in the business arena. NOBODY is born talking business english, even "whites" have to learn it.
I sleep with a trilingual linguistics graduate, and i speak lithuanian (the most archaic indoeuropean language still alive) so you know, i get your point. but i think "tolerance" goes too far into the realm of "impractical" and "lazy".
I used to teach swimming, and i would use a posh correct english accent in the health club and a broad south london accent in the public pools in the rough neighbourhoods. Why not?
In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
I'm not against having a standardized vocabulary, spelling, or grammar. What was specifically the topic of the video that comment was a reply to was the uproar over a black teacher teaching kids that they were "uneducated" if they said "axe" instead of "ask." And it simply isn't true. It has nothing to do with education and everything to do with English having multiple dialects. And historically, the dialect spoken by white Americans has always been considered okay, regardless of how far from the supposed standard it is (which is why I brought up the Boston pronunciation of "car" as "ca-" and the non-existent Southern contraction "y'all") while the dialects of minorities such as Black Americans and Latin Americans has traditionally been frowned upon.
Thinking there is a standard English pronunciation is delusional. There are accepted standards (plural) of English, most of which are based on white, affluent speech. Now that English is an international language, however, that will surely change. Take India, for instance. They say things like:
"Open the air conditioner."
Instead of:
"Turn on the air conditioner."
Is it wrong? Not if everyone in India talks that way. As more countries embrace English and make their own personalized changes to the language you'll see less arguing about what is "educated" and "uneducated" English and more open acceptance of the fact that people who live in different places speak English differently--and get along just fine without needing "standard" English.
In reply to this comment by MINK:
i see nothing wrong with there being a "business english" standard, or "bbc english". Of course it's not ebonics or half spanish.
I learned Lithuanian to help me get work in Lithuania. I don't swear in front of new clients. I don't walk around talkin fakkin sarf landan aksent and insistin dat peeples rispek my rights, innit.
almost all jobs involve speaking to people, and therefore the way you speak is part of your job performance. What's wrong with that?
In the UK there was a trend for putting call centres in scotland because the scottish accent was judged to be the most trustworthy. What should I do, cry "discrimination!" and insist on more call centres in liverpool (an accent nobody can understand or trust)?
bear in mind i am not at all anti immigration, i just think that it's normal to have a separate language and etiquette for business, and there's no way that's going to be based on a fringe accent, it's gonna get melted down to "average".
People never used to say "gonna" on TV. Now they do. Things change. It's ok. There's many other ways to oppress minorities if that's what you want to do. Eradicating accent prejudice is never ever going to work.
I learned Lithuanian to help me get work in Lithuania. I don't swear in front of new clients. I don't walk around talkin fakkin sarf landan aksent and insistin dat peeples rispek my rights, innit.
almost all jobs involve speaking to people, and therefore the way you speak is part of your job performance. What's wrong with that?
In the UK there was a trend for putting call centres in scotland because the scottish accent was judged to be the most trustworthy. What should I do, cry "discrimination!" and insist on more call centres in liverpool (an accent nobody can understand or trust)?
bear in mind i am not at all anti immigration, i just think that it's normal to have a separate language and etiquette for business, and there's no way that's going to be based on a fringe accent, it's gonna get melted down to "average".
People never used to say "gonna" on TV. Now they do. Things change. It's ok. There's many other ways to oppress minorities if that's what you want to do. Eradicating accent prejudice is never ever going to work.
In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
One issue that no one has mentioned is the issue of power. When people talk about standard English in America, what they are usually really talking about is the English spoken by white, middle-class Americans. There's this unspoken assumption that if you don't speak like a white, middle-class American then you aren't educated. And that's really the tragedy of this story. Some of these kids might be capable of getting perfect scores on their SAT's but because they pronounce words differently than the minority group that is currently in power (white Americans) they'll be judged as somehow inferior on a job interview.
I just want to point out that there is no such thing as "standard English." There's British English, Australian English, Singaporean English, Indian English and a host of others. There's not even a "standard American English." There are many regional standards that have overlapping facets but still also have a lot of variation--the most important variation being pronunciation. Think about this--why is it in this clip the black children are considered uneducated for pronouncing ask as "ax" yet Boston children are not considered uneducated for pronouncing "car" as "ca-."