Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Yeah.

My big question marks were --

I wonder about cause and effect -- just because something happened after something else happened, doesn't mean it caused it.

I wonder about diminishing returns. Yes, the economy was stimulated by the wholesale creation of a middle class, but surely that benefit must diminish as the middle class is created. It is like the Republican theory of raising more revenue by lowering tax rates. It works at first, then it doesn't.

I am a big fan of Mark Twain. In one of his books, he had this funny comment to make about extrapolation. Paraphrased --

Mississippi River gets shorter every year, because some of the twists and turns disappear as the river breaks through to cut off loops.

Extrapolating, if we go forward in time, in a million years ago the Mississippi will be one mile long. Going backward, the great river must stick out into the Gulf Mexico like a fishing pole.

I had that feeling while listening to this talk. Things are more complex than he is presenting.

By the way, I generally enjoy your comments on the sift.


Your comment (I cut off some of the programming, so the box has disappeared:
Ya, I thought the same thing as well. What he didn't talk about was what the taxation was in respect to total GDP. If he did, he would of had to admit the fact that taxes were lower as a fraction of total spending. That compared to today, taxes were "lower" for most every american, like 99% of them or whatever his statistic is. So even though you had very high marginal taxes, it didn't extract nearly as much revenue from the total economic system.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 4 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Wasn't angry. Capitals and other formatting just used for effect. I apologize if I came off that way.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
You lost me completely. I understand the difference between legal and illegal. There is no meaningful distinction between something that has been decriminalized and legal. People use "decriminalized" to still place the moral bad sign on something while advocating it's non-criminal status; a way of labeling something bad and yet having it be legal. The phrase is all about having your moral cake, and eating it too. Didn't mean to excite your anger there, was just asking what you saw as a difference, if any, between something that is decriminalized, and something that is legal, because for me, it is semantically the same.

Your video, Breast Missile, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I agree with what your saying, trust me. But, as I was trying to point out we've, as a species, gone to great lengths to hurt ourselves and negate progress. That is what I was alluding to when I said: "I've seen the worst and the best of things we have in this world come from humans. Many of our terrible aspects can be linked to mental illness, abuse, no education, etc... ".

In many cases the "evil" or "good" are a neutral aspect anyway (if you look at it from a evolution point of view). But, evolution also shows why many of the things we consider good are merely evolutionary necessities to survive, i.e. grouping, society, negative impacts on the group by mentally ill group-mates--leading to punishment/exile/or death. This is present in the animal kingdom as well. There have been some recent books covering this very point and they're quite good; if you wish to read one, my advice would be for "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris.

Lastly, I know science will not have all the answers. But, if we can deal with the problems I listed above it will bring us closer to a day with understanding; but, many problems will still be left (as technology gets more advanced, it requires less and less people to cause near fatal problems for cities-->countries-->and then the world. If we can't find a way to fold the people back into society willingly we may ultimately fail. By the mid-point of this century, maybe even sooner, it may only take one scientist with a vendetta or a psychotic break (caused by the mind or drugs) to create a virus that targets human specific genetics--if that scientist can throw in some nano-tech... That might be it.

Or we could end up with nano-bots able to self-replicate in our bodies and provide us with protection from viruses, bacteria, other nanites, and able to give you your daily medication as well.

The future is clearly open-ended right now, but I don't think it's quite as dim as justanotherday postulates. Yet, science and religion in the long-term are most likely completely incompatible. Religion can stay in the background without causing conflicts, but if it's at the core or upfront competing with science they'll always rub each other the wrong way--as they are nearly polar opposite in function and approach.

/Yes, I do think the "Atheist" in the video is a Anti-theist. It doesn't mean he's wrong, but he is approaching a solution in the opposite direction that I would suggest (unless the religious leader is like the scientist above in my example: psychotic, mentally ill, etc...).

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I didn't want to derail your conversation there, but as an aside, science has also been a great cause of pain and death. It is has a neutral bias, as I would also see religion. The state of it is largely in the hands of the humans at the helm. We have medicine, but we also have machine guns. We have the United Christian Children's fund, but we also have sexual abusing Fathers.

In reply to this comment by kceaton1:
>> ^justanotherday:

Interesting. I guess everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Besides, given his past, I can see why he is bitter. Life can be cruel. It is hard to embrace any authority when it fails you so miserably. I still don't see why some believers and non-believers can not get along. Of course, the media only focuses on the few that can't get along. The majority of believers and non-believers can get along. Neither can definitively prove the other side is completely right or completely wrong. So they do a sort of agree to disagree. I do believe that anyone, with any kind of sense, realizes that there is much more to humans that transcends all beliefs. We are more than we appears. More than the sum of our parts. At least science proves that concept. But that does not conclude anything else except just that we are more.
--In the final analysis, I think we will find the true answer is beyond all human perceptions. One can't possibly think we are the highest intelligence in the multi-verse space-time. That would be arrogant at best. If we are, then it is a sad multi-verse space-time. If we are not, then the possibilities are endless.--


The only problem with how you put this is that you are giving a value to something we can't reliably judge for ourselves. It's the same gripe he has with religion. Religion likes to contribute to it's own definition and no other relative position is welcome.

We would also be arrogant if we don't consider the fact that we may be the smartest thing there is. We know already that there were most likely ancestors and perhaps non-ancestors in human past that had a high IQ; due to the size of their neo-cortex. The difference is that our lineage brokered the gap between minds with an extremely descriptive language and body language piece of construction in our brain.

Also, you describe humanity as "sad". I've seen the worst and the best of things we have in this world come from humans. Many of our terrible aspects can be linked to mental illness, abuse, no education, etc... Don't give aliens the benefit that they will not have to deal with the same issues.

Finally, science has made HUGE strides in not only understanding ourselves, but also the environment and creatures around us. In 100 years, out of the 250,000 years we've been around, we've made strides that would seem impossible just a decade earlier. In 1995 when I left graduated from high school the Internet was good for gaming and small-scale communications. In one decade it had become HUGE, allowing you to do things never imagined before (even gaming saw the same leap--just from the advancement of the Internet; WoW is a good example). The Internet is now on the verge of becoming threaded into our everyday life; this is true for a nearly endless list of technological changes and scientific knowledge.

Science also has made great leaps in understanding our psyche (soul for others) and our overall brain and psychology. If you want some quick rundowns on what we know don't look at psychology (as it tends to be secondary to neuroscience), look at neuroscience and artificial intelligence.

Yes, you're right.
If you imagine him as impotent, he becomes clownish though. And I like the clown in him.


In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Uhg, I just watched this and am reminded how much I hate O'Reilly. So rude, arrogant, demeaning, and more!

well sir, my vagina is always pleased to bring pain and joy to your many, many orifices.
In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I actually choked on my drink and nearly did a nasal take on that, lol.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
i pretty much exclusively let only nerds into my vagina. but i've never wanted to put so many nerds in my vagina at once. i want to put anonymous in my vagina. i want them to live there and take it all down from inside me. then i want to give birth to the revolt. but they won't have to wear those stupid guy fawkes masks when they come out, they will wear their beautiful beautiful faces.

Mhm. There are of course some inherent Slippery Slope problems, and of course corruption of the system, but that's in all systems. The main point is that it should basically be a choice whether or not to be treated as an adult. Any given test should be pretty easy, and it should be based on what you know, not what you have (like property).

Just a very, very basic knowledge of, I dunno, the world, politics and critical thinking. Hell, the test part could be taken out completely, and it could be based on if you want to be treated as an adult, so you have to apply for a voting license.

The basic thing is that when you are voting, you are essentially deciding what you and others can do - you should have some qualifications for that, instead of just being over 18 years old.
In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I second that! I hate that you can't even be hypothetical without being called a fascist. It is pretty entrenched that the world "owes" you rights out of womb. It doesn't occur to most, that rights by their nature are just an agreement with people. People take for granted most things about rights I guess.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Voting shouldn't be a birth right.


Voting should be earned by having at least a basic knowledge about the voting process, what it means and what the different parties and people stand for, I'm not saying that everyone have to be a pol-sci, but just to eliminate the "I voted for him 'cause I saw him on the tv-box" voters and let the people who do not want to know out of it.

I propose a two tier citizen level - one is "adults", who function as a normal adult today, with all the rights and privileges that we enjoy today - the other is "children" which essentially has the rights and privileges of a child (with certain modifications). The children have not yet grown up enough to take part in the political process and this growing up is not based on age, it's based on simple tests and willingness. That is, if I really want to be treated as an adult I can be done so by passing some simple tests, then I get the rights to vote, to enter politics, to essentially decide things for other people than myself.

Sure, it can be viewed as a slippery slope to fascism, but I still think it would be better than the straight representative democracy that exists today. I wouldn't have had my voting privileges until I was at least 20, because before that I just didn't care.

The biggest problem is if someone starts putting in values in the tests, so you for instance have to answer a question conservatively or liberally to pass, that would defeat the purpose and make the tests politically molding, rather than educating.

Anyway technocracy ftw.

My reply to gwiz dealt with your post as well. Really, I should have combined or separated them for more clarity. My bad, you're right, it does look like I was saying you agreed with the property rights thing, and the @ to you should have probably been in the second one along with the one for gwiz.

However, I stand by my opinion that voting needs to be easier instead of harder, and governments don't need more power to disenfranchise people. If we want better results, we need a more informed and educated public or a different form of governing ourselves. Like I said, I agree with the sentiment you and others are expressing, and restricting voting is a logical solution, but I think there are many unforeseeable and unintended consequences in implementing tests/classes/etc for voting. See my comments in that thread about corruption, etc.

Regarding birth in a country giving you specific rights, well, that's just how it happens to work culturally, right? I mean, if you look objectively at the concept of countries, they're automatically going to be fairly arbitrary simply due to the lack of choice in being born. Historically, it was and easy way of determining citizenship in a world where lines on a map could help you determine a lot. In today's world, those lines are all blurred, and technology gives us all sorts of options for keeping records, administering tests, etc. So, we have new options and there's nothing wrong with thinking out loud about that.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
You obviously didn't read anything I wrote because I didn't agree with the prospect of land being the basis for voting. I spin your comment on critical thinking back at yourself and challenge you to read my comments for how they were intended. GWIZ has a comment right above yourself that mimics what I have said in a much better phrasing. Perhaps try and be a bit more transcendent yourself, sir.

In reply to this comment by mgittle:
@GeeSussFreeK @Winstonfield_Pennypacker

Let's do a fun critical thinking exercise! You guys really need it.

Say someone's company asks them to move to a different state or city and take a position for 2 years, after which they'll be asked to move again to a possibly more permanent position. That person looks at the local rental/housing market and decides it'll be cheaper to rent for those two years because the cost of the loan/interest and the potential hassle of selling the house (possibly at a loss) is really risky to deal with when you know you're going to move.

That person, who is capable of making an intelligent and informed decision, shouldn't be allowed to vote? Even using your "logic", I can see how someone could feel it prudent to prevent "temporary" residents from voting on local matters like millages, mayoral elections, etc, but state and national elections? Really?

This also doesn't consider college students, people who are living together but not married (such as with significant others or family members who own homes), or millions of other people who simply can't afford homes or don't want the lifestyle, maintenance costs, etc of owning a home.

I was really trying to avoid making any sort of personal attack with this...but I have to ask, did you even think about what you were saying before you typed it out?

Your video, Physics: Momentum + Boobs = Science, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 3 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.