Ha!

When Socrates hears voices, it's because of a demon. But when Shiny hears voices, it's the unadulterated word of god.

Save your worry for yourself, and anyone else who doesn't know the Lord. Satan has you. Socates was no different. By his own words he was demon possessed:

"There is something spiritual which, by a divine dispensation, has accompanied me from my childhood up. It is a voice that, when it occurs, always indicates to me a prohibition of something I may be about to do, but never urges me on to anything ; and if one of my friends consults me and the voice occurs, the same thing happens : it prohibits, and does not allow him to act. And I will produce witnesses to convince you of these facts."

Xenophon wrote of him:

"He offered sacrifices constantly, and made no secret of it, now in his home, now at the altars of the state temples, and he made use of divination with as little secrecy. Indeed it had become notorious that Socrates claimed to be guided by ‘the deity:’

Only, whereas most men say that the birds or the folk they meet dissuade or encourage them, Socrates said what he meant: for he said that the deity gave him a sign. Many of his companions were counselled by him to do this or not to do that in accordance with the warnings of the deity: and those who followed his advice prospered, and those who rejected it had cause for regret."

Satan is the ruler of this world and the elite people in this world got their power from him. They know where power comes from. That's why they all gather together every year at the bohemian grove to worship Molech (a demon God from antiquity) and offer sacrifices. Bill Clinton attends as well.

The wioked people who run this world know that Satan is the ruler, and so do we Christians. It's you secular humanists that are in the dark about reality. They've got you running around thinking you're so brilliant and superior, when in truth you are just like cattle being led to slaughter.

Research Bohemian Grove sometime and try to come up with a convincing lie as to why the worlds elite gather every year to worship Satan.

http://youtu.be/P_PAqT2JZOw


>> ^Gallowflak:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry, you're actually starting to worry me. Before, I just thought you were an over-earnest but obnoxious evangelical type who kept pounding away at the same nail to absolutely no effect, but if you're actually being serious about this, whatever intellectual credibility you may have had? Gone.
We are now deep within bat country. By Socrates' beard.

@shinyblurry, you're actually starting to worry me. Before, I just thought you were an over-earnest but obnoxious evangelical type who kept pounding away at the same nail to absolutely no effect, but if you're actually being serious about this, whatever intellectual credibility you may have had? Gone.

We are now deep within bat country. By Socrates' beard.

In answering other points; I never demand anything. Nor have I. Have you ever been wistful? That's how I feel and that's the emotion I am trying to express.

And I have always pointed to the fact that masses of people make stupid decisions. Perhaps because their worst traits feed off of one another's worst traits? But I strongly note that individuals are awesome, most smart, and better (Including yourself in this) than a mob or culture.

There is not a sense of admin versus the little guy from me. There is a sense of admins sometimes powerless to stop what has occurred.

But, let's note something else, since I feel long of wind today. It is your opinion that my view points are skewered, and that is fine. Perhaps that it is different, or otherwise "skewered," points to the possibility that it is better than others--although lacking self confidence prohibits me from feeling that way. As such, I will take the comment as neither compliment nor jab but as is--an opinion.

But now let me switch to socratic fashion in this--since he is my hero and I can better put my point of view across. And, so let's question some "knowns." It will help answer the question of how I got to my conclusions.

You stated that everything done here is for the "best" for the videosift community. So, if you will, please enlighten the sift on some quantifiable "best." Remember though, if you please, that doing for others a convinence is neither good nor ill, neither for the best nor worse but, rather, situational.

Also, we should remeber that the best is not necessarily such things as making people happy. Much happiness has been wrought at the expense of others. For instance, the estranged husband whose wife passes, or the videos of cops killing helpless people with brute force.

If I may ask, what was the reason for the standard in the first place? You seem to have stated, by denying that morals were comprimised, that the standard was never a standard, but rather, just a guideline created for creations sake.

Further, if I may be so bold, after admitting yourself that the slippery slope was started, then how can you boldly note that it should stop? My opinion was that it should have never started. And, while it is possible to state that the comment you made wasn't about the slippery slope starting, it is, unfortunately, now about that.

Just stating my own opinion, but to me this video did bring discussion to the front; especially since other sifters and I had already discussed some of these debating points. A-Assault rifles are killing Americans, B-Psychological instability, C-The violence of our culture, D-The culture we are creating in law enforcement that makes them timid and fearful to pull a gun, least not certain sifters be there with a camera, E-The fact that nobody cares when a cop does the right thing.

Yes, the clip itself does not talk about these things, but then neither does any of the other videos--at all. They talk about useless crap like "law enforcement sucks" or "I'd sue the shit out of the office." That isn't discussion, that's a diatribe.

I won't gainsay what you have done because I am a man who follows rules and laws--but I will be like Socrates and defend my position while the hemlock is placed into this video. I just find it ghastly that this video being implied as "just for the horror factor" when it's far from it.

Perhaps I will take Sagemind's advice and use the Sift Talk as an outlet for these points.

>> ^lucky760:
In general, videos that depict a person being killed just for the horror factor are not exempt from our snuff guidelines. Furthermore, there is no discussion or debate to be had; the video just says "watch this guy murder this cop!"
If this exact video was the reverse, where the cop in the firefight survived by killing the driver of the truck, it would still be considered snuff. This would just be no more than "watch this cop defend himself and kill this guy to death!" However, if it was a case of an officer abusing his power to the point that a life is lost, it has greater potential to elevate the video's significance beyond the sole act of killing.
It is typically easier for a video to fall outside our snuff guidelines when an officer is unlawfully inflicting rather than unlawfully receiving the fatality because such events are by nature more likely to be worthy of discussion/debate. (Criminals are supposed to commit crimes; cops are not.) Think "dog bites man" versus "man bites dog."

Bring back everyone. Everyone. Install an ignore option that prevents private and public messaging, or some other solution that is simple, effective, and private. Remember Socrates? Let's not repeat his trial.

@shinyblurry It's impossible to argue with your biblical rhetoric, but I'll try. If you can help me by answering my questions.

How do you know your god is the right one if you rely on faith?

Your analogy suggests that the evidence for god is all around us, what evidence, specifically, are you pointing to?

How do you know you're pleasing god so that the evidence will be forthcoming as you suggest?

Furthermore, many of these arguments have already taken place and argued brilliantly by Socrates, see: http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/library/plato/the-trial-and-death-of-socrates-2.php

How do you know what is the will of god if the very nature of god and his decisions is mysterious and beyond our understanding?

The bible is flawed horrendously before you go to that easy answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo&playnext=1&list=PL80294485C9139857

Educate yourself so that we may discuss.

Socrates sez: "Let [her] that would move the world, first move [herself]."

And then a modern Socrates stands up from his seat and asks him why he's doing that.

Oh wait, we live in a perpetual shroud of nihilism, nevermind.

I had a dream about this movie once...

Oceanic Flight 815, en route to Earth 2, crash lands on a desert planet infested with giant sand worms and zombies. In an attempt to get home, the survivors encounter Jeffrey Sinclair on board a space station caught in a time rift, who reveals that he has been chasing Q who is commanding an army of half-Scarran, half-Sylons with Goa'uld symbiotes to conquer a magical island in Neverland. And the only one who can save the universe is Jim Raynor, captain of a stolen Firefly, and his life partner, a half Wookie, half Time Lord who has sworn a life debt to the captain. They have a depressed robot sex slave who isn't attracted to them and each of them owns a power ring, bestowed to them by the Guardians of the Universe (who are all dwarves, except for one of them who is Tom Waits).

You don't even want to know who the crew of the Firefly is. It will blow your fucking mind. Ok, I'll tell you: Napoleon, Socrates, Sigmund Fruuud, Billy the Kid, Genghis Kahn, and Ludwig Van; then for some reason Whoopie Goldberg is there with William Shatner, Patrick Stewart, and Malcolm McDowell, who can't stop pining over Beethoven. At the end of the movie, the crew is clean cut, the robots are all shiny, and the ghosts of Bill Hicks, Rufus, Obi-wan, Pizza the Hut, Dr. Frankenfurter, and Alf are all sitting around waiting for you to wake up -- but, when you wake up -- you're Homer Simpson! OMG don't tell ANYONE about the twist ending or the sequel where he meets Hank Hill who gets abducted by aliens and meets spooky Fox Mulder and that sexy redhead Leeloo.

My mind is exploding! There may be another me who isn't as awesome as the real me and enjoyed the movie The Notebook... Pshhhhhh -- Frell the frack off. Every alternate reality of me smokes pot and makes or plays video games. Stop trying to change me, universe!

Socratic dialogue:

Blanfisticles: People donate more to causes that are threatened, therefore we must eliminate all funding for causes in order to increase their revenues!

Dystopianysus: Uhh, dude, you're nuts, tax cuts don't increase revenues cutting government funding to a program won't increase its revenue.

Blankfisticles: Whose responsibility is it to give to charitable causes, government, or people?

Dystopianysus: You're changing the subject.

Blankfisticles: So?

Dystopianysus: *sigh* Very well. I say it's everyone's responsibility to look out for other people, and that's why I don't see why setting up a society-wide arrangement like government funding for charitable programs bothers you.

Blankfist: You're an idiot. And a statist. And Thoreau was an anarchist, and as we all know he's an infallible person who you're a moron for not listening to. And no, I don't plan on living in a shack in the middle of nowhere, are you crazy too?

Blankfisticles: Shut up, id. What I mean to say is that helping people should come from the free and voluntary choices of individuals. No one should be forced to do anything not of their choosing.

Dystopianysus: And what if an insufficient number of people donate to charity, and it results in mass suffering? What then?

Blankfist: That won't happen.

Blankfisticles: I said SHUT UP, id. Excuse me, I mean to say that I would give all I had, and get on a soapbox to shout and yell to encourage others to give all they could to help the massive suffering, but I would never once put the threat of force on anyone.

Dystopianysus: But isn't it the duty of all people to help those in need?

Blankfisticles: Yes, but they shouldn't be forced to live up to that duty.

Dystopianysus: How is that a duty then? It's not a duty if you can choose not to live up to it without any consequences.

Blankfist: Still, you just shouldn't. Because.

Blankfisticles: People own themselves, and also own their lives, therefore people own the product of the labor they spend time on, and it should never be taken away from them just like your arm shouldn't be taken away from them. To say otherwise is to say that you can enslave another man, and you disagree with slavery don't you?

Dystopianysus: So what you're saying is that while you say it's our moral duty as individuals to help those in need, you're going to refuse to voluntarily agree to a social contract that formalizes that duty into a legal requirement to contribute money to charitable causes?

Blankfisticles: Pretty much.

NetRunner von Freud: Blankfisticles, have you ever considered the possibility that your affinity for these anti-tax philosophies is being driven by your more basic impulses, and that you just use them as post-hoc justifications for things you wanted to do anyways?

Blankfist: *gay

NetRunner von Freud: Sigh.

'Hey, jury is out! Need a transitional thing... last thing was this chimpanzee named Lucy, but it turned out to be a human! You need to have faith in science.'


Its interesting to imagine how Michaelangelo, or Newton, or Socrates must have felt, surrounded by other humans even more ignorant than them... and I wonder, is it any different for us now?

If there is one constant in human civilization its the struggle against encroaching ignorance.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

This is not democracy.
Democracy is not 'evil'.
We couldn't be further 'from saying the same thing'.


Democracy sent Socrates to death over 2 thousand years ago and it sends us to our death now. It sent to death generals who fought for Greece, then denounced that decision and sent to death those that made the push in the first place. Democracy has a history in death, inconstancy and injustice; and tends to favor those who can amass power and have effect on majority politic. Democracy isn't evil, but the men who sit behind it are. I freely admit that democracy may be the best system you can have to maintain the highest level of liberty, but it also has high entropy towards evil, as evil seems to have high levels of political ambition over the normal man. Saying "this isn't democracy" is like saying Soviet Russia wasn't "true" communism, moot.

@Bidouleroux

I think this needs to be clarified... When I refer to "atheists", I'm talking about the demographic that self-identifies as being atheistic. If we're talking about the best and brightest then, yes, I'd concede that atheists are, and I'm trying to minimize pretentiousness, of greater intellectual maturity and honesty than their religious counterparts. They, however, aren't representative of their demographic by definition; the best and brightest are a minority. Mature, open minded, intelligent, critical, Socratic individuals who think for themselves and take pride in the exploration of ideas are a goddamned rarity and, whether they identify as atheistic or rastafarian, they're not much different from one another in basic function. The critical analysis of ideas doesn't seriously take place, or at least it doesn't seem to... a congregation is split between the shepard and the sheep; ideas are absorbed from the figurehead, processed and adopted or rejected. The same thing occurs in secularists, atheists, humanists and so on; assimilation of ideas from figureheads or icons or humans who people feel represent their own sentiments better than they do. There's also a sort of intellectual osmosis, depending on the environment. Essentially, I've come to accept that people mostly adopt their ideas from other sources, and free-thinking individuals can do that and modify those ideas or cultivate concepts of their own, but do so on a much more active, serious, engaged level.

There was more here but it was essentially irrelevant, and I've been as excessively verbose as I'd ever like to be.

Funny, I was just reading the Gorgias Socratic Dialogue yesterday. This is just chopped full of rhetoric, "These are the times we live in", which is of course, meaningless...when has their not been violence and injustice in the world, but it sure sounds nice.

Rhetoric is to politics what pastry baking is to medicine, and what cosmetics are to gymnastics. -Socrates