Nom Nom Tasty Baby Meat, Must Have

tonehammer · 1 day

This is top work for a music video, perfect selection of shots and synchronization to the music, and hundreds of man hours went into it.

Stop it. Please. You're being ridiculous. 100s of man hours going into something doesn't make it good. It means it took a while.

Sync'ing to music is fucking childs play, the interesting work done in music videos is when something feels as though it works with the music but it is not simply cut to the beat the way this is. The footage are arbitrary action selects strung together in a way too segmented manner. It was built linearly, not abstractly but with intentionality.

Look at something like smells like teen spirit for good music video editing, hell look at the BT videos, I don't fucking know, there are a million things with amazing editing — even the new Swedish House Mafia absolute thing has better editing than this; this was strung together by a cutting assistant.

Aaronmcom · 2 days

You clearly did not see the movie. This is exactly what the movie was like, and they used a grid and sonar buoy away to call out coordinates the way you do in the actual game.

tonehammer · 2 days

Are you kidding me? No. Just no.

What's funny, is that this actually a great example of shit editing.

With all the footage and work that went into it, a lot more care should have been put into the integration of the montage; you have hundreds of shots with roughly similar framings, and virtually no interesting match cuts; no narrative, no story, no emotion, no nothing. All that is done is time remapping and razor edits to the beats; horse shit, and not what editing is about.

ethicalking · 2 days

Attack others all you want, it doesn't make you a big man.

You jump to conclusions and accuse others of doing the same. Pot meet kettle.

mutatedllama · 2 days

You didn't read well enough. Your argument is that he parked outside the 3 point zone. That is not what the author said. True, it doesn't specify inside or outside, "around" can be either;

No, its outside. There is not enough room inside the three point zone for a truck, and people playing basketball. Also, he would then be over the hashmarks, key, or free throw line. There is no ambiguity here.

By your argument, if he managed to drive in and park right under the net without running anyone over, then it's his spot.

That's a stretch — The presence of the ball in combination with a three point line demarcated roughly the zone they were playing in. If he was inside the three point line, its on him, and in addition to the basic geometry from above, I'm pretty sure the OP would have said so if he were. He went to some lengths to paint himself in the best possible light, so if it were the case, it would've been said. I don't believe this is a baseless assumption/inference, and either way its one I'm willing to make.

they did not have to run around and physically block each spot with their bodies to prevent him from getting his truck in any of them.

They did, or they needed to demarcate the area with cones prior to his vehicle entering the lot. The vocal warning after the establishment of use by the truck is too late and insufficient. I thought I made this clear.

Your argument works more if they started the game after he parked. Perhaps you think they did, you've already implied that you figure the author is not truthful in a number of spots.

No, I do not think they did. The only places where I think the author is not truthful is in the part about them accidentally hitting the truck, and that the police were in fact called; I also actually question the lifeguards involvement all together — no lifeguard would leave the pool.

If the kids warned him right away that due to the lack of walls around the court that the normal course boundaries included the the spot due to balls constantly overshooting, they did their due diligence.

No, they did not. He did not assume risk by parking near their game; they have a duty of ordinary care, and by not establishing the boundaries of their game prior to his arrival, they then become the ones coming to him, and assuming the risk of damaging his vehicle.

But the fact is that under the original story the author told, the driver is at fault. You said the kids were at fault without stating "I doubt it happened that way, if it actually happened as I think it did then the kids are at fault." Now you are trying to qualify it by saying your argument is for "what likely happened" rather than what the author said. So once again you are changing your argument midstream.

Ugh, are you fucking stupid? No. Under the way the author said it happened, the only part we do not know is if the kids hit the car intentionally or accidentally after he left. I am not qualifying it by what likely happened, I am responding to the scenario under which the kids are least likely to be responsible; their best case scenario.

Both the fact that the lifeguards intervened and supported the kids, and that the truck drive left without getting the police involved point to the author's accounting being correct rather than your assumptions.

My assumptions do not contradict the authors account, and neither of those facts in the story support that the driver was in the wrong, that's an assumption itself.

Yes, a kid might embellish; but the adults involved all ended up going with the kid's side of the story.

Lifeguards are not generally "adults." That the truck driver left could be entirely unrelated, such as that he had somewhere to be, or that he had an outstanding warrant, etc... and could not afford involvement with police.

mutatedllama · 2 days

Dude, if they'd taken out my sausages BloodyNora wouldn't be able to type the story.

mutatedllama · 2 days

You conflated error with emotions. You've been watching too much Star Trek First Contact.

mutatedllama · 2 days

Assumption of risk does not come into play for reckless conduct which this certainly is, or when the behavior rises to the level of general nuisance (repeated offenses). One hit might be acceptable, even a few, but the OP established a definitive and repeated pattern of behavior.

Additionally, without seeing a specific map of the terrain and orientation, you cannot rely on assumption of risk. Given that it sounds like the kid lived right next door, its possible they are playing on a section of the pitch near his house; this behavior would certainly not fall under that. Finally, if it is a nice pitch, or there are leagues etc... the assumption could be that it is a higher level of player using it who will not send errant strikes; soccer is not the same as golf, and unless his home is directly behind one of the goals, the risk of a ball hitting is wall is low and would not be assumed.

Finally, just as there is some minor assumption of risk, any player has the obligation of ordinary care toward the property around them, as just as the pitch was there when the owner moved in, the house and fence were there before the player took the field with the ball.

I'll accept there's a small likelihood assumption of risk might work, but a bunch of factors would have to align in your favor.

Edit: One other thought, while the owner may have come to the danger, it is unclear that the house itself came to the danger. If the house occupied the site prior to the pitch, traditional case law may not apply.

mutatedllama · 2 days

This basic fucking common sense. If you don't want to be civil to your fellow man, do us a favor instead, and die.

mutatedllama · 2 days

Nope, its the same thing. Sorry dude.

mutatedllama · 2 days

You have a right to kick the soccer ball on the field and in a way that it does not go off the field. You have no reasonable ground to kick it off the field. Doing so accidentally could subject you to penalties.

mutatedllama · 2 days

Nope. You think a cop would be able to make that argument?

A cop might side with the kids until this was pointed out to him.

mutatedllama · 2 days

How exactly is there not? You asked for a law, I gave you one. Do you not read?

145.00 Criminal mischief in the fourth degree. A person is guilty of criminal mischief in the fourth degree when, having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he has such right, he: Recklessly damages property of another person in an amount exceeding two hundred fifty dollars.

This is the most common thing NYPD threaten to charge people with when called to the scene of some mundane, small form of property destruction; like someone accidentally breaking something in a bar. They say make the other person whole, or spend the night in jail on this charge.

mutatedllama · 2 days

Oh yeah, agree 100% I just was losing steam and didn't really want to go into all of that. Well put.

mutatedllama · 2 days

Well, you come off as a little less stupid after that comment.

mutatedllama · 2 days

Parking next to a court may not, but you already said that this is both a court and a parking lot, and it was being used first by the players.

Not the space he parked in, otherwise he would not have been able to park there. He was outside the 3 point zone, so there's no reason he would expect they are using more space when he pulls in. If the players had demarcated a larger area (that's what we did when playing roller hockey) then they might have a claim.

The confusing issue here is that while their game may have started first, their use of the space did not. The space was vacant when they he showed up (otherwise he would have run someone over), causing his parked truck to become the sole legitimate occupant, which the ball then infringed on when it tried to occupy the space later.

While they did try to ask him to move etc... they only did so after the truck was already occupying the space and had established its rightful and legitimate possession of the space. If they had tried to yell to him before he got there, they might have a case.

He was being perfectly responsible with his car. It is others who are being irresponsible with a ball who would cause the damage.

You are also switching your argument midstream. You said this was vandalism, then later called it an accident.

I'm not changing argument midstream — I'm accepting the most robust form of the scenario and rebutting it rather than what likely happened. We don't know whether it was vandalism or an accident (the authors tone indicates it might have been semi intentional, and its arguable that having alerted the truck driver to it, and continuing to play it is definitely vandalism/criminal mischief) but since we don't know, and its harder to make a claim for responsibility for an accident, I'm accepting the possibility that it is truly an accident, and attacking the strong form of the argument (accident) rather than attacking a straw man (vandalism).

Get it? I'm actually giving the kids (you) their best possible scenario for a positive moral and legal outcome, and they still come up short because of the truck's prior established legitimate use of the space.

Were there painted lines other than the three court line? The way I am imagining this, is a single hoop with the markings for the key and the three point line. If there was a full court outline on the ground, including center court, etc... then its on him, but the way I read your story, this was most certainly not the case — he parked around the three point line (nearby, but outside); this reads as not a full marked court to me.

mutatedllama · 2 days

This is like saying the people that buy houses on the golf course expect to be compensated because someone accidentally shanked a ball into their window when their house is sitting to the left of the damn fairway.

Which is exactly what happens. You break a window, you go over, apologize and give them your card to send you the bill. What kind of fucking animal are you?

I'm just not that good at golf...

Then if you don't expect to pay for your actions, you should not be playing on courses where you have any chance of hitting someones house.

It is not their problem that you suck at golf, and it is selfish and solipsistic to think that you have any right to make it their problem.

If you hit my house, I would 100% expect payment, and likely a pledge that you would never play at that course again.

No where in the world is your incompetence an excuse to harm me.

Get the fuck over yourself.

mutatedllama · 2 days

Balls don't just stop at the edge of a soccer field that is not fenced.

Correct, and the person kicking the ball is well aware of this when kicking said ball, and should take precautions for it not to do that if he doesn't want to face the consequences of his actions.

How close this guys fence was to the field plays a big factor.

No it doesn't. Kicking the ball off the pitch is against the rules of soccer. It doesn't matter how close the property line is. However, one could argue that if it is too close he has a claim against the city or whomever owns the soccer pitch for not anticipating this when building it.

Maybe one of the goals was facing his property and had no net, combined with no fence on the field. Resulting in the ball commonly hitting the fence.

Yes, this would a) definitely allow for the above claim against whomever installed it or operated it / was responsible for it, and b) it is stll whomever kicked the balls fault, because they should not be playing soccer in a field without a net, and they know full well they are likely to hit his fence or cause damage.

If it was causing no actual damage to the fence. Which by the sounds on things it wasn't, then he really had no reason to come out and rant at kids to play elsewhere.

Huh? No. Hitting a fence a few times causes wear and tear, it can cause paint to crack, it can cause a board to need to be replaced, diminishing property value and forcing the owner to either engage in maintenance or employ someone. It also, suggests the likelihood that the ball will at some point come over the fence and enter the secured area. This could then have significant further repercussions for damage. The owner was justified in protecting his property.

Angry old men tend to not get their sausages replaced because they have already made everyone dislike them by not being terribly rational to begin with.

That is irrelevant to whether or not he legally deserved to get his sausages replaced. Morally is a bit more grey, but you're speculating into the situation in a way that doesn't make sense. To me its a lot more likely the callous family next door is the bunch of pricks who have pissed everyone off.

If the field was not adequately fenced it is the council/owner of the fields problem and not the childrens.

No, it is both of their problems, and the children should tell the council/owner to fix it so they can play appropriately. An improperly designed field does not absolve a player of negligence.

Don't purchase a property next to a sporting field.

Not really relevant. Sure, its a good practical tip, but legally/morally which is what I'm discussing, not pragmatics, its neither here nor there.

mutatedllama · 2 days

We're not arguing about whether you're a nicer guy, we're arguing about how stupid you are.

mutatedllama · 2 days

Criminal Mischief http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article145.htm

You kick a ball against my fence more than a couple times, I have to repaint it. Painting a fence costs more than $250. Done. That took me 2 seconds. Its also a small claims case if it doesn't rise to criminality.

mutatedllama · 2 days

Yeah, because if you park your car near the field at a Little League game and a foul ball smashes your windshield, you're going to bring that kid in for vandalism?

No, but the Police will absolutely make the kids father pay for the windshield.

Is it that kid's responsibility to replace the windshield?

Yes, it is.

You still put your vehicle in harm's way. You knew there was a pretty good chance a foul ball would come towards where you parked. You chose to park there anyway.

No, you did not. If you parked your car, say, on the field, sure you accept that responsibility. But parking in a parking lot near a diamond does not constitute a waiving of rights.

He parked RIGHT next to the 3-Point line where kids were actively playing basketball?

He could not have parked in the spot if there was someone standing in it using it. He is allowed to park next to where someone is playing without fearing damage.

If the kids had demarcated the space they were using for basketball (which was what we commonly did when playing roller hockey in parking lots, you could argue that they had asserted their use of the space and so therefore had the claim to its exclusive use, and the driver had no right to park their at that time (since their use was an implicitly permitted one by virtue of the hoop). However, since they did not and no one was in it at the moment the truck driver parked, his use became the prior, originating legitimate use. That their game started before his use started is irrelevant, because his use of the space started before the ball later tried to occupy the same space (ie what caused the bang).

What's funny is that your example, the baseball field, actually shows why my point is right. The baseball field is demarcated for specific use, so no one would ever park in left field. But right next to the field? If its a parking spot, I wouldn't even consider the thought of a foul ball, and if my window was broken without a contact note left for following up, I would certainly call the police.

The liability is absolutely, 100% yours — unless he accepted your warning that it might get hit — which he did not, he told you not to fuck up his truck. The only way it could be shifted is if the complex had posted signs alerting the individual that they accepted responsibility for the risk imposed by basketballs.

I understand that you think your argument is common sense, and it may be, but its wrong.

mutatedllama · 2 days

His truck was occupying a defined space. They were not playing basketball in that defined space when he parked, so he (his truck) became the rightful occupant of the space. By attempting to play basketball in that area (ie the ball moving into that area), they were in fact doing what others have accused him of (occupying space they were using).

If they were using it, they should have demarcated it with cones. Because they were not there and they had not marked their use, his use was the only legitimate and rightful claim at the moment his truck was hit with the ball.

They had no right to play basketball in that space once he was there.

mutatedllama · 2 days

His fence is on his property line. They're kicking the ball off the presumedly publicly owned pitch, and attempting to put it on his property every time it hits the fence.

Any common law jurisdiction.

mutatedllama · 2 days

morality is completely subjective.

Actually, that is completely consistent with my statement of what human morality is. What it is like to be another person is one's subjective experience. So I don't know why you said this.

if the guy would have come over and talked in a respectful tone about his problem maybe you would be right but he didnt he came over screaming so he lost any respect he may have had.

Incorrect. If the guy has a legitimate complaint, he is allowed to act angry, because he is rightfully angry. If he does not have a legitimate complaint, then you are correct. In the scenario above, he did — two fold, one the damage the child caused, two and this is more important, that the child had not been taught certain basics about human society — such as that one should apologize and offer amends. Since the person he was yelling at is responsible for the raising of the child, the offense made in error by the child, is actually the Father's offense; these two are certainly enough to enrage someone. The third offense, of laughing, might result in death.

While you have a point that strategically you are more likely to get what you want by not yelling, you are incorrect that one forfeits moral high ground by acting disrespectfully in response to a harm. Respect is a two way street, and it is very clear that this kid and his family lost the Sausage Owner's respect a long time before he went over to yell at them.

I am not afraid of things becoming violent, I do not know why you would say that particularly since I am actually advocating the harmed party beat the offender for his insolence.

You're also conflating situations — the one above, versus one where someone tries to walk all over you unjustly, which makes no sense.

The above situation can be defused with "Chill out dude. How much were the sausages? And I'll tell them not to kick the ball in your yard again." That is not being a doormat. That is being a polite member of society. That is being a man.

However, if someone "steps to you" or tries to "walk all over you" you can be calm, assertive, and tell them no. That their request is absurd, why it is absurd, and what negative things will happen to them if they continue in this line of reasoning. This establishes repor, sets a baseline for the interaction, and defuses rather than escalates.

I had a knife pulled on me in a club once. I had a gun pulled outside of one. I have had at least a half dozen potentially deadly standoffs, and many less dangerous ones. This worked every, single, time. The one time I was drunk and laughed at someone, he took a swing at me five minutes later and I had to put him down. Laughing in someone's face is not an assertive or manly or intelligent thing to do. It is a provocation which without a purpose is insane (see Fight Club of when you might want to).

You can continue to argue as boneheadedly as you like. You will still be wrong, and you will likely end up in a ditch if you put your words into action.

ModernDemagogue

TROPHY CASE

ModernDemagogue

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login