I know you're not a thick guy. I was asking for clarification on this:

"Your insight into how Iran and North Korea have placed rigorous controls over their weapons gives me a lot to think about. The former Soviet Union once had such great controls but their superpower status fell and fissionable material was being lost by the pallet. North Korea however is in much stronger shape and their government has obviously made the commitment to containing this danger instead of spreading it."

When did I ever elude to Iran and N. Korea having rigorous control over their weapons or not. Strawman? I'm not sure what you are driving at here.

Liberals seem to come in many varieties, some are indeed privileged, like me, who grew up the son of two school teachers. Many are poor, many are blue collar, and there are limousine libs as well. Liberals are not afraid of the French Revolution, in fact many fantasize about FR2: Electric Boogaloo. Liberals aren't motivated by fear of the poor, but rather empathy and anger at social injustice.

When I say supportive parents, I mean it in every way possible, financially, emotionally, creatively, educationally, etc. Most important is that they are there for you, which is not the norm for many kids, whose parents work several jobs.

I can tell you have great parents, because you are a great person. It is obvious that they allowed you to think and grow and create. I'm not using that as a put down, I'm just saying that some of the shit I've seen teaching in poor neighborhoods would break your heart. The number one factor in student achievement is parental involvement, and when mom and/or dad aren't there, kids get into trouble in many ways. It's not right that someone has to choose between putting food on the table and spending time with their kids. These are the real life consequences of 'wage-slavery'.

I'm claiming wage-slavery (not poorness) is a product of supply and demand, which (if I understand correctly) is one of the sacred principles of the free market. When there are more people than jobs, supply and demand becomes an instrument of rape.

Who are we to say otherwise? WTF?

The majority of consumers want socialized medicine, who are we to say otherwise? - blankfist, March 31, 2009

(imaginary hell has frozen over)

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I believe you have a valid, possibly accurate, take on a lot of people who are Libertarians, but I wouldn't know as I don't know too many at all - almost none outside of VideoSift. Most of the people I know who come from privilege are liberals terrified to their very core of a lower class uprising similar to the French Revolution.

I feel like you may be grasping at straws, albeit ever so eloquently and persuasively, when you attack the dichotomous argument of what someone perceives as lifting themselves up by the bootstraps and having supportive parents. I'm not sure I ever led a life of privilege, since you seem to be indirectly insinuating me in this conversation. My father and mother still work even though they should be retired thanks to them blindly believing our social security system they paid into would take care of them. Secondly, I did in fact work in textile mills from high school through college except when I was in the military.

I did have supportive parents, just not financially supportive, which it seems you are eluding to as money and class seems to be an issue with you. I'm not sure whether someone had supportive parents or not should or could ever be used as an argument against volunteerism over coercion. People should be supportive, but only if they choose to do so.

You claim the poor is an effect of the free market. Are you sure you're not confusing the free market with, and forgive my 'isms', capitalism (or rather state capitalism) or corporatism? The free market is simply a mutually beneficial agreement without coercion. If that can (or worse is) destroying any section of society, I think we should all pack it in and get back to hunting and gathering, because we simply will never have a chance as an evolved social species.

I, too, am for smaller business, but you have to support them for them to viably exist. Unfortunately, the consumer chose Walmart instead. It's sad, but... if that's what people want as consumers, who are we to say otherwise?

I believe you have a valid, possibly accurate, take on a lot of people who are Libertarians, but I wouldn't know as I don't know too many at all - almost none outside of VideoSift. Most of the people I know who come from privilege are liberals terrified to their very core of a lower class uprising similar to the French Revolution.

I feel like you may be grasping at straws, albeit ever so eloquently and persuasively, when you attack the dichotomous argument of what someone perceives as lifting themselves up by the bootstraps and having supportive parents. I'm not sure I ever led a life of privilege, since you seem to be indirectly insinuating me in this conversation. My father and mother still work even though they should be retired thanks to them blindly believing our social security system they paid into would take care of them. Secondly, I did in fact work in textile mills from high school through college except when I was in the military.

I did have supportive parents, just not financially supportive, which it seems you are eluding to as money and class seems to be an issue with you. I'm not sure whether someone had supportive parents or not should or could ever be used as an argument against volunteerism over coercion. People should be supportive, but only if they choose to do so.

You claim the poor is an effect of the free market. Are you sure you're not confusing the free market with, and forgive my 'isms', capitalism (or rather state capitalism) or corporatism? The free market is simply a mutually beneficial agreement without coercion. If that can (or worse is) destroying any section of society, I think we should all pack it in and get back to hunting and gathering, because we simply will never have a chance as an evolved social species.

I, too, am for smaller business, but you have to support them for them to viably exist. Unfortunately, the consumer chose Walmart instead. It's sad, but... if that's what people want as consumers, who are we to say otherwise?



In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Yep, that's the standard libertarian line on abusive business.

My standard response to that standard respnse is something like:

"The people I'm talking about don't have a choice. It's very easy to sweep other people's misery under the carpet and claim it's their own damned fault, especially when you yourself have (very likely) led a life of (relative) privilege and opportunity (this is usually a tender subject for libertarians, sorry, but it is spot on 99.9999% of the time). The problems I speak of cannot be laid at the feet of the entire lower class, because these problems are systemic, and one of the many, many, many, many, many major failings of the 'free market'.

We'd absolutely be better off without WalMart. They put a lot of small businesses out of business and degrade the culture and quality of life wherever they set up shop. WalMart is the American poster child of free market failure.

I do agree with you that people are rarely satisfied by what they have, but I'm talking about those who make less than 15k for performing grueling, back breaking work, and have little time to spend with their families because they have been bound and gagged by the free market. I'm talking about people who have a right to complain, but usually don't, because no one listens to them."

Usually after that, the libertarian gets miffed and tells me how hard his (always a he) life has been (the adversity is always minimal), and how he has earned everything solely by the sweat of his Galtian brow (which is usually a euphemism for extremely generous and supportive parents and a whole host of various other peoples that are conveniently forgotten). Not saying this is you, but this is what I've encountered in my numerous arguments with libertarians over the years.

Not trying to offend. You are a kick ass intelligent, funny guy, whom I care about. I'm just keepin' it real.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
^Quantumushroom PLEASE stop acting like you KNOW what's going to happen. You always elude to what could be happening down the line when, if history is any guide, Obama's 'New Deal' is likely to succeed the same way FDR's did.


Meh, just ignore him. His tin-foil cap is 2 sizes too small.

But there was one number in that ridiculous blue pamphlet - a huge fucking tax break for the rich.

It's like they're not even trying. Or maybe they're just trying to shoot themselves in the foot again. They clearly aren't out of bullets, although eventually they're just going to be walking on their bare ankles...

^Quantumushroom PLEASE stop acting like you KNOW what's going to happen. You always elude to what could be happening down the line when, if history is any guide, Obama's 'New Deal' is likely to succeed the same way FDR's did.

^ First of all, I don't believe in collective rights, you are putting words in my mouth. I don't believe in any natural rights whatsoever. However, I do think there is something called justice. I think "true" justice is unobtainable as we lack the needed tools for it. You can't always punish people in the appropriate degree for the crimes they commit and certain situations are convoluted enough to lack any means of creating rules to manage them. Your over idealism clouds the practicality of carring out any "real" justice.

Furthermore, you go on and state there is no room for ambiguity yet don't clarify some universal idea of justice that apples to all peoples notion of it. Justice for some is retribution, for others, it is repayment, for others it is punishment and yet still others it is rehabilitation, and for most it is some hybrid of all of those. What you fail to point out in your objection to my claim of the officers side is how he violations instead of fulfills this "true and pure" for of justice that you seem to have an idea of that I don't.

Practically speaking, I would love to have seen this guy get moved by a score of police officers into the back of the car, but if you had to get scores of cops for every speeding ticket that went bad, you and I would get no police protection to speak of...they would just get mired down in the business of people tapping into the knowledge that they can just sit and cry out a ticket and hope the cop has to let him go because of a lack of man power at the present time.

In a perfect world of unlimited resources, maybe this COP would of had more options, but this isn't that world. He made a call, and the first tase I think was a good one. I think there is still room for argument that the subsequent tases were excessive.

As a rely to Wax as to the use of physical force. Physical force against someone should only be used to prevent physical violence, period. Whether it be against person or property. Sitting there crying wasn't hurting anyone.

Would this also include tackling a purse snatcher who can only be brought down by a good old fashion tackle? If so, then the only thing a criminal would need to do is be non-violent and fast to elude capture. Perhaps I am oversimplifying? Perhaps you could elaborate. Fact is, that force is the tool of police. It is that force that they yield that we call upon in our time of need. In most cases of domestic disturbances, people call the police even though they have legal authority to do very little...why? Because police represent the force. Police only exist because force is needed to keep the laws in order.

While it can be directly seen that he was a threat to no one including himself. He still didn't comply with the officers lawful order. Not knowing the details of the police department in question it races only the ideological question of if police are allowed to initiate aggressive force on a passively resistant force. This is highly controversial and up for debate within the justice department. I don't mind getting downmoded for this, it is controversial to say the least.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ufbponld.htm
Bureau of Justice Statistics
U.S. Department of Justice

I don't think the idea of making criminals pay for the extra costs is a bad idea either, but that doesn't magically make more officers available to us when they are used in a way like suggested. The same would go in a hospital. If someone ruins a heart for a heart transplant, well they should still have to pay for it, but that someone who needed it is now either dead or has to wait for a new heart that doesn't come. That person is robbed of the heart who has committed no offense ( it isn't a perfect analogy here, but it is close).

That is my basic thought on the matter, should the person who calls the cops because his house has a crook in it have to wait longer because they are dealing with someone who resisted arrest(which is a forceful action of will instead of violence but force nonetheless). Someone is not going to get their fair share of justice...who will it be?

>> ^radx:
Dictionary helps crack case of notorious Polish serial offender
HE WAS one of Ireland’s most reckless drivers, a serial offender who crossed the country wantonly piling up dozens of speeding fines and parking tickets while somehow managing to elude the law.
So effective was his modus operandi of giving a different address each time he was caught that by June 2007 there were more than 50 separate entries under his name, Prawo Jazdy, in the Garda Pulse system. And still not a single conviction.
In the end, the vital clue to his identity lay not with Interpol or the fingerprint database but in the pages of a Polish-English dictionary. Prawo jazdy means driving licence.


This is by the far the most awesome... even better when you see the driver's license.

Dictionary helps crack case of notorious Polish serial offender

HE WAS one of Ireland’s most reckless drivers, a serial offender who crossed the country wantonly piling up dozens of speeding fines and parking tickets while somehow managing to elude the law.

So effective was his modus operandi of giving a different address each time he was caught that by June 2007 there were more than 50 separate entries under his name, Prawo Jazdy, in the Garda Pulse system. And still not a single conviction.

In the end, the vital clue to his identity lay not with Interpol or the fingerprint database but in the pages of a Polish-English dictionary. Prawo jazdy means driving licence.

^To the poster above: Obviously she was eluding to his obvious lack of fundamental knowledge on a topic he introduced into the discussion. It was in order in keep the quality of discourse high. I think, a reflection of the woman's dignity and self control. I mean seriously, your are being a proponent of talking shit, about shit you dont know.
"How 'bout that A-rab boy runnin' fer pres-ee-dent"
"Osama? Day boyz dayz are numbered"

Also, Holy crap i am crying with laughter

MrFisk aka Wilson Fisk. Marvel Comics. Punisher's enemy. Avatar was originally B-Boy Che Guevara. Choggie asked me to change it and I did. Now it's gorilla with a tie holding an automatic weapon. Both avatars are the work of Banksy, one of my heroes.
My name is Warren. I'm 32. I have lived in Texas, Nebraska, and Las Vegas. Currently, I am in Nebraska in-between school, once again. I peddle cigarettes and booze for a living.
I am single and have eluded children, as well as, incarceration. I'm addicted to women; I am gallant. I have a great sense of humor. I love quotes.
I have read a lot of books and have not one degree to show. I plan on getting my doctorate in something sometime. I would love to become a writer but I lack discipline and I am a perfectionist. I have many wild and crazy stories. I crave fun.
I like to eat good food. I love to play chess and will be a master soon. I love to travel. Once, I lived in my car for three months and drove across the United States solo. I would like to travel more. I like maps.
I have endured through a broken spine, a gunshot, and a siftquisition so far this life.
I like videosift.

>> ^rosekat:
Is it humourous to misspell 'sense'? Eludes me.


Classic.

Is it humourous to misspell 'sense'? Eludes me.

Goes to show, even a dupe can elude a sift veteran.

I don't know if anyone read the comments on godtube, but they're pretty good (they always are, aren't they). One of them eludes to some type of mass cover up where human remains are always found inside dinosaur ones but archeologists remove them to perpetuate the LIE-- BUM BAH BAAAAAAAAA!!!!

>> ^EDD:
^Dear GeeSussFreek,
you call yourself a scientist. That is fine. However, I will warn you right away that many on this website would question your devotion to scientific method based on your username alone - tell me, is it a coincidence that it's pronounced exactly like "Jesus-Freak"? I'm asking this (rather rhetorical) question because religious fanatics claiming to be scientists are often proponents of Intelligent Design, which is (I'll be frank here) a load of steaming bull excrement. I hope you are not one of this fold, because I've had my share of "dialogue" with these folks, and it has never, ever resembled anything like a reasoned, structured discourse.
With my worries laid before you, my response is this:
there are many fields of science and from your short stay on the Sift you would apparently style yourself as a jack-of-all-trades (economics, military, political science, theoretical and quantum physics, chemistry, just to name a few of which you've shared your opinion). Yet, it would also appear that you may be master of nothing.
A scientist (especially one talking about science and scientific method) would not ever, under any circumstances, attempt to draw their own definitions of FACT. Or any concept previously and universally known, for that matter. Me, I was taught what general as well as specific definitions of 'fact' are in secondary school. It would appear your "science diploma studies" have taught you nothing of this. Scientific fact feeds directly back from scientific method, which includes fancy notions such as peer review, one which has unfortunately so far eluded the scope of ID proponents. In science, fact may at times not be the absolute truth, it's what's agreed upon by the informed public. Our knowledge in most advanced fields of study can never be perfect and complete, but the ones most often making this claim are religious folks, saying that scripture "has all the answers".
Now, mass. My oh my.
Mass, assuming we're talking about gravitational mass, not inertial-7th-grade-physics-mass here, is the interaction of gravitational fields. In other words, yes, gravity. The same concept you differentiated, indicating exactly how much you understand of this and that I have no need to go into supergravity, supersymmetry and duality and start actually looking things up. Thanks for that. Oh, and by the way - mass is not created. Neither is matter, for that matter.
Continuing on-
regarding your nonplussed ideas about quantum theories, I have to disappoint you a little bit - it's still discernible, natural science; it hasn't obliterated all previous theories in physics; in fact, I dare you name three it has. Yes, the math involved is a 'bit' harder, the conjectures deeper and at times wilder, but scientific method is still applied.
You also said: "The fact is, that science doesn't deal with facts and has no method of proving things true, only methods of proving them false."
First of all, I LOVE your use of "fact" in this sentence, just love it. Anyway, hypocrisy aside, all we need, is a YES/NO or a TRUE/FALSE experiment. Their initial assumption will either be true, and they will PROVE something to be true, or it will be wrong, and they will prove that it is wrong. Works both ways, just like logic's supposed to, in your brain.
In conclusion, I return to my initial lines:
"You call yourself a scientist. That is most definitely not fine."


So, because I am a Christian, I can not be science minded. Thats a weak assertion. Moreover, its a showing of the new bigot mind set against any of those who have a different mind set. It is the new thing. To expect me to tolerate and be tolerant of your ideas, but the same latitude is not relayed back. I wouldn't count someone out just cause they called themselves agnosticfreak, would you? But that isn't the point of this conversation.

Intelligent design is crap. I never even mentioned it here, but yet, you rolled me into an automatic assumption that I believe that...I don't, its a fundamentally bad idea of applying impartial physical interpretations of the world and using those to apply to a metaphysic's of the creators doing. This is bad, it is not even an theory, but thanks for the assumption.

And thanks for the unmerited attack on my interests, I won't return the favor.

In your third paragraph, you totally just reiterate what I always said that science has no claim to absolute truth, so I will take that as a consesion on your part, but then you automatically assume that I do agree that ID is a valid theory in which I believe, which you are wrong. So I will take your concession and your incorrect assumption and slide right by your personal attacks for the moment.

As for mass, I was trying to show that even the simple idea of where the mass of an atom, the most simple idea in particle physics; in a unknown. So in effect, the basis of our understanding of particle physics is incomplete and yet we call things on the higher level facts, and I object to the terminology, just as one might also object to a Christian saying that God being real is a fact...its just a misuse of the language. I also object to things being called laws, but it is more of language that we are talking about on these things. There is a connotative and denotative meaning obviously, but I still think the terms are misleading. So my battle was over terminology abuse in this case.

You talk about the scientific method again. I would like to bring attention to the scientific method 2 problems that very prominent people in science have had with similar instances of rules in empirical practice. First, was one of my heroes, Alan Turing. His problem was one in computer science (my field btw) where he was trying to prove or disprove the ability to make a program that could test if other programs terminate (ie not suffer from an infinite loop). The problem was, you could make such a program, but you would have to then turn that program back on itself to make sure that it also terminates. This presents a problem. Because we still don't know if the program terminates. So, the problem was that there was no way to verify the thing that was created to verify things. Thus, the proof showed that there is no way to create a program that can test of other programs terminate.

Likewise, there was formerly a school of thought that has now all but vanished called the Verification theory( I believe this was the term, correct me if you know better). The verification method heralded that unless something could be empirically verified, it is meaningless. However, the same thing that happed in Mr. Turrings proof destroyed this idea as well for when we tried to verify the Verification theory, there was no verification to be had. So, I use the same argument on the Scientific method as to show its level of truth is very low indeed. It is a Theory that can not be turned back to proof itself. It rests on arbitrary principles that seem good...and they are good for lots of things, but truth is not one of them. The Scientific theory can not show itself to be truth using the scientific method. In fact, quantum physics shows us more and more that the very act of observation changes the data. In other words, sciences attempts to claim things being the way they are might only be so because they looked, not because they are actually that way. Once again, the problem of phenomena and Noumea.

You then use a classic example of why I choose my battle of language with science. It is impossible to prove something truth with science. Things are truth in science until they are not...which is no truth at all. Can you name one idea from 200 years ago that that isn't radically different from today? In essence, those proven theories weren't proven at all, they can only be disproved. Science only deals with negative evidence, not positive. Things will always be revised in science, and more over, we never really know when they won't need to be revised again; and thus this is why science can never have a claim to have a TOE (theory of everything) because you don't ever know when you know everything...you don't know when every fact is accounted for, every essence of the whole is taken into account...it is an unknowable thing (from the standpoint of absolute knowledge).

*edited out cause Internet people can't be trusted with humility*. However, I don't think my claims are baseless, and I attempted to have a civil talk about them. If I came off as rude or condescending in my first reply, then I do apologies as this was not my intent. I have a real eagerness to talk about such topics openly and freely on the sift because we have some very intelligent people here and normally some pretty good discourse (we are many stars above the youtube crowd). I look forward to perhaps a more civil reply in the future Hopefully I have covered all your points here, I tried my best.

Edit: spelling