I kinda anticipated this sort of stuff would happen with him, but just not so soon.

I think the better question is, why would you want to convert this guy? As long as people don't use religion as an excuse to be jerks/bigots, I really don't see a problem. I wish I could be religious. Seriously. Believing that after you die, you're going to live forever with all your friends and family? That's awesome. It certainly beats an empty void, and would make death a million times less scary (which is obviously a big reason why people invented religion in the first place). It would also be nice to take all the shitty stuff that happens in your life and just say "well, God has a plan!" instead of getting all depressed about it. Seriously, I'll say it again: I wish I could be religious.

While the host is being rather rude, and I do not really see the canidate being that worthwhile to vote for (for the moment), I do think the host should let the man speak. Speaking up, shouting, or just talking over the person, is so 'O'Reilly-ish'.

The issue of Capitalism vs Goverment, is so simplistic of a arguement, as to compare an orange to an apple. In a pure capitalistic sociality, monolopies would eventually win out. And the more well financed companies would control other companies. A good example (that's recent for you kids), is Microsoft. At one point, in the early '90s, The Microsoft Corp. had a 97% usage of all computer operating systems in the US. If goverment did not intrude, Microsoft would hold a strangle hold on ALL companies in the USA. Every software, would have to pay royalities and 'protection' money to Microsoft, every company would fully comply with Micrsoft's wishs. And Microsoft, through sheer scales of economy, could buy out all its competitors, and in to other related industries within 15-20 years. Along the way, the company purchases financial companies, with media (like CNN or The New Yourk Times), and sports teams. Now, if this sounds like a conspiracy theory of monolopies, you are starting to get the idea. Monopolies do not increase creativeness, but seek to destroy it.

Capitalism does not have an inherent mechanism to self-correct itself, as those who promote it, would have you believe. If the rule of law, for business was pure capitalism, the USA would quickly be turned in to a technocracy, as an extreme small group of extremely wealthy individuals changed the laws, to better suit their wishs. You, the reader, are simply an irrelevant peon, meant to exist only for your master's pleasure. Your life, and deathy would be absolutely dictated by someone you will never meet, nor speak to. But that person would own you as a slave. You would be enslaved by financial debt so deeply you could not get out of it.

This is not even a conspiracy or sci-fi novel. This stuff has happen in the past. Companies in the railroading industry, financial, texile, defense, and others, have employed tactics to garner more wealth. Crack open a history book on American business 1790-2009. Look for the Sherman Act. Look at laws that require someone to make 1.5 times their hourly wage after 40 hours. Back in the Texile mills of New England (1820-1920_, a person would be required to work 70 hours, or be fired. This stuff is not made up. THIS, IS, what capitalism is REALLY about. So if you wish to be a fool, and want completely open capitalism, and ignorant to its dangers, then do yourself a favor, and live the rest of your life as a monk, making $2/day.

I agree with 1-3.

However, I will say unequivocally that Ben Bernanke is not an idiot. Crook is possible, but I think that's unlikely. As for deflation, let's put it this way: Bernanke has expanded/is expanding the money supply radically, and we're seeing no response from the CPI, and unemployment is still going up. If Bernanke reversed course, and contracted the money supply, do you think the CPI would go up, or down? Would unemployment go up, or down?

Personally I think the simple answer is that America has neglected the importance of actually creating real goods and services for people, and instead have built an entire economy out of get-rich-quick schemes. A particularly large bundle of "get rich quick schemes" all just got found out, and shut down (by investors, mostly). Thinking that adjustments to our monetary policy is all we need to fix things seems like another get rich quick scheme, and one we should shut down.

I think what we need is a return to a postwar-style New Deal economy. Seems to me, the bad stuff started happening when we started ditching that about 30 years ago...

Dammit! Why does bad stuff always happen the day before my birthday?

>> ^NetRunner:
What is government doing to keep the concept of corporations in existence that private citizens wouldn't be able to do through contract?

>> ^blankfist:
Corporate power depends greatly on the intervention of government - how often do you see private business (read: small business) receive subsidies and bailouts? Ever heard of Corporate welfare? Yes? Ever heard of private business or free market welfare? No? Hmm.
How about protectionist tariffs? Heard of those? Grants of monopoly privilege? Seizing of private property for corporate use via eminent domain (as in Kelo v. New London)? Shall I go on or can we stop there?

Progressives don't like it when big business get our tax dollars. Usually we argue for things like small business subsidies, regular welfare (ya know, for poor people), anti-trust legislation and enforcement, etc.

We also don't like corporate tax loopholes, capital gains tax cuts, or attempts to eliminate or reduce estate taxes, or the porcine industry-specific tax cut.

We don't like when people are putting their hands in the cookie jar who shouldn't be, we just don't think getting rid of the jar will help fix the problem.

Me: To mildly rephrase dft's question, how does libertarianism defend against private power and influence taking advantage of people's lack of information or knowledge to their own detriment?
blankfist: Hardly "mildly" rephrased. Corporations and private are hugely different. That aside, your point is very valid. Let me ask you this? What has stopped this from happening now? Government is the power in that scenario, and they steal our money and use it to fund war and pay out no bid contracts to very powerful corporations. Your petty watchdog programs aren't working. Government is the power and influence.

I fail to see how detaching power and influence from the constraint of law, or the accountability of a ballot box improves anything.

If you have a suggestion on how to make sure that the people our Constitution and our democracy empower to make decisions regarding when to go to war will always use it wisely, I'm all ears.

And government certainly takes advantage of those who are less educated. Have you read any of the tax codes? Hey, ever heard this one: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse!" Would you dare agree with me that it's impossible to know all the laws, so therefore it's inevitable for you to be ignorant of them? Your government is "taking advantage of people's lack of information of knowledge" and doing so with our money.
Any questions?

Yes, are you nuts?

The tax code is too complex, but the real issue with it is not the complexity, it's the fact that most of that complexity is designed to benefit people with multiple homes, businesses, yachts, and complex investment portfolios.

The free market provides me with tax preparation services, though most of them tell me "you don't own enough for us to do much for you" (though they say it very differently).

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but when's the last time you faced a legal penalty for anything bigger than a traffic violation? For that matter, have you ever gotten a traffic violation for something you didn't know was illegal?

To turn that around, do you understand your credit card agreement? Your cellphone contract? Have you ever received a bill that included a fee you were charged for doing something you didn't realize they could charge a fee for? Should they be able to sell the information you provided them without your consent?

Why isn't the free market stopping that stuff from happening already?

I think with religion you have to use a mix of probability and logic. In my mind, the probability of a omnipotent being or creator seems unlikely given the evidence or information that we have so far obtained. The fact that it's unlikely doesn't prove that it isn't true. Given the question 'Does a God exist?' - binary logic cannot be applied as it is an unknown, it can only be applied to questions with definate yes or no answers.

With such a broad subject such as religion, with multiple sects, understandings and uptakes to it's teachings, ranging from a no questions asked 'yes, the earth and everything on it was created by a being in 7 days, fact' to 'I don't believe this stuff ACTUALLY happened, but I think it's a good set of teachings to live by' and everything inbetween, it's difficult to apply Sir David's quote to any particular set of christian beliefs, especially with so little information available. As mentioned before however, it's most likely that he is arguing against the creationist theory, with which he is quite famous for doing so - see his wikipedia page section on this matter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#Religion_and_creationism ). It seems natural for David to have an opinion on this matter given his career, and likely many people are interested in his thoughts rather than it being an attack on a religion.

My view is that he is attempting to state his case against creationist belief, that evolution is non-existant, and that an argument for god and intelligent design cannot be made by select choosing examples from nature rather than sampling from it as a whole, you can't choose one thing and ignore another. I wouldn't say that it is an 'attack' on christianity, that would be similar to saying 'I don't believe in santa, because I didn't get any christmas presents' to be an 'attack' on saint nick. He is just putting accross his view/opinion on the question being asked. In my opinion, the interviewer was linking the question about belief in a god and the philosophy of nature.

I for one would like to see the entirity of this interview.

Also,

>> ^gwiz665:
There is no positive light that could possibly outweigh the blight on humanity that is Christianity. When it finally is extinguished and we humans have moved on, the world will be a better place. Christianity is the cancer of the mind.


I find it difficult to believe that someone can be ignorant enough to tar all individuals in a religion with the same brush. Even broadly speaking, that's a strong and highly generalised view. I have no problem with people believing in what they like, as long as they don't put their belief on me, use it in an argument or apply it irrationally to important matters (such as being elected into office lolololol ¬_¬), they can believe what they wish. To call christianity a cancer of the mind could equally be replied to by saying your narrow view of religion is certainly a handicap.

You know, I really don't see much of a difference between and a LOT of stuff that happens in the US.

Scientologists use very similar techniques to deal with their problem cases. Prayer is being used to "cure" everything from cancer to homosexuality. The only difference is that we have much more in the way of alternatives, but that said, there are probably equal or MORE cases of prayer/bs religious stuff being used in stead of real treatment in the US.

>> ^quantumushroom:
You've stated that you read the Bible, if only to please family. Despite your level of belief, the very act of opening that book without announcing it's in order to mock or refute it makes you suspect. In the current political climate even a passing belief in God is proof enough for opponents to label one a 'fanatic' (except if you're Muslim).
Anyway, just some words, thanks for your blog and your post.


You misunderstood or misconstrued what I said. Seeing how it was worded, I see the potential for the misunderstanding. Please allow me to clarify the below line because that seems to be the source.

I don’t attend church often anymore because I find some church actions hypocritical, but my dad doesn’t care: “Just read the Bible,” he says and I do."

What I mean is that having looked at Church history and current actions, I find some actions that don't match the teachings of how we are supposed to act. I think I'm being slightly unfair here though. Because I am also very frustrated at the actions of many, many people who claim they are Catholic or Christian and act in a manner that is wholly incompatible with the core beliefs of the faith. My frustration is directed at them and the Church. Maybe it unfair to "punish" the Church for the actions of present day hypocrites, but shouldn't the Church do something? I've seen many members of the Church accept these actions because "oh that stuff just happens these days." Eh? Yes the following is dramatic, but it is the same excuse that a person could use when watching and not stopping a rape: "Oh, well things like that happen in the big city and if I help, my soup will get cold!"

I read the Bible QM. Not to please my family or to placate them. I read it because I want to. What I was referring to with my dad is that I think of him as one of the "good Christian/Catholics" - he actually reads the Bible and tries to follow Jesus' teachings. My dad doesn't care if I go to Church or not. He doesn't care about that, he only cares about my faith.


>> ^quantumushroom:
Despite your level of belief, the very act of opening that book without announcing it's in order to mock or refute it makes you suspect..


QM... I've read this sentence several times trying to figure out what you mean and you lost me. I mean it's obvious you are trying to undercut my beliefs or my "authority" to speak on the matter, but I'm not following your logic. Please explain.

You have know Idea how angry this video makes me, or maybe you do. Good find, I wouldn't have heard about it any other way. This is why I support rights of people, no matter what they have done. Once you start treating them like cattle this kind of stuff happens.


http://www.videosift.com/video/BART-Police-shooting-in-Oakland-KTVU-Report

jeez, you're awfully sensitive and hostile over the subject. I can't imagine why. I'm sure there's a good reason though.

I also like how you pick and choose the things you'd like to respond to me about and show zero humility the entire time.

last post.

In reply to this comment by dag:
What? Sorry, my decisions turned Choggie into a troll? Sorry, but I'm to blame for Choggie throwing a fit because we wouldn't give him a 4th channel?

You've really got it all worked out in your head. I wish on you a community, so you can try out all of your stellar notions.

It's easy to shout and judge from the sidelines - and you can do that at Digg or Reddit to your heart's content. Good luck on getting a response from their admins on bullshit accusations or poorly thought out screeds against authority.


In reply to this comment by joemawlma:
ok dag.

"Actually, you sound quite sure of your opinions all-around. As much as you malign Digg, I can't help but feel you would be more comfortable there."

i left digg for reddit a long time ago when the same stuff started happening there as is now starting to happen here. you wouldn't have had to ban those other members (for good reason) had this whole thing been more fair. yes, choggie was a troll, but your decisions turned him into that.

i realize you need to find a compromise for 'necro-spamming' as you've suggested but there are plenty of intelligent ways to do that which won't punish everyone. for example, only let members with 100 stars comment. or flag people who change massive numbers of comments all at once. or just delete the accounts all together of people who pull that crap. i find your excuse for this change to be "complete and utter bullshit." and i know for a fact there are better alternatives that could be programmed into siftbot.

finally, considering this site is successful because of the members and the whole concept is based on DEMOCRACY, why not do something FAIR like ask for valid suggestions from the community and then have them vote on the best ones? you could have posted it on the front page for a week or month and again even only let those with at least a gold star vote. but you didn't. gavel hits the desk, and if we don't like it, we can leave. because you're the owner and creator right? the "ruler" if you will. i've dealt with enough of that attitude for the past 8 years from evil bush supporters in my country.

i apologize for our disagreement and i appreciate your creation that is the sift. i've been around so long because you beat me to the idea of this site and i appreciated the ingenuity. but right now, that's about all i agree with. i admit my previous statements probably were a little extreme but everything i've said to you here is spot on.

i'm rarely logged in anymore anyway and the comment change gives me more than enough reason for it to decline even more. i know i won't be missed.


good day and good luck.


In reply to this comment by dag:
Sorry, but that is such complete and utter bullshit.

No one has been "banned for voicing their opinion" here.

Yes, we have grown a lot - and we have had to make adjustments. The bigger we are, the bigger target we make. And some individuals would like to hurt the Sift. Necro-spamming is an issue and we'll continue to make changes that we have to for the health of the community.


In reply to this comment by joemawlma:
this is what happens when a site gets too popular. creators abandon their most loyal early adopters because of a stupid disagreement. it's not like losing a few members will hurt your ad revenue bottom line. follow in digg's footsteps; that's what you've been trying to do since the beginning. and doing a fine job of it.

it's draconian to take away our ability to change or alter our own comments. and as far as the "breaking the comment flow" goes, people should be quoting the person they're speaking to when they respond in the first place. then it won't matter if a previous comment is taken away. reddit does it with the ">" symbol. pretty simple really.

oh well, time to move on for me anyway. i'll probably be banned for voicing my opinion too.

ok dag.

"Actually, you sound quite sure of your opinions all-around. As much as you malign Digg, I can't help but feel you would be more comfortable there."

i left digg for reddit a long time ago when the same stuff started happening there as is now starting to happen here. you wouldn't have had to ban those other members (for good reason) had this whole thing been more fair. yes, choggie was a troll, but your decisions turned him into that.

i realize you need to find a compromise for 'necro-spamming' as you've suggested but there are plenty of intelligent ways to do that which won't punish everyone. for example, only let members with 100 stars comment. or flag people who change massive numbers of comments all at once. or just delete the accounts all together of people who pull that crap. i find your excuse for this change to be "complete and utter bullshit." and i know for a fact there are better alternatives that could be programmed into siftbot.

finally, considering this site is successful because of the members and the whole concept is based on DEMOCRACY, why not do something FAIR like ask for valid suggestions from the community and then have them vote on the best ones? you could have posted it on the front page for a week or month and again even only let those with at least a gold star vote. but you didn't. gavel hits the desk, and if we don't like it, we can leave. because you're the owner and creator right? the "ruler" if you will. i've dealt with enough of that attitude for the past 8 years from evil bush supporters in my country.

i apologize for our disagreement and i appreciate your creation that is the sift. i've been around so long because you beat me to the idea of this site and i appreciated the ingenuity. but right now, that's about all i agree with. i admit my previous statements probably were a little extreme but everything i've said to you here is spot on.

i'm rarely logged in anymore anyway and the comment change gives me more than enough reason for it to decline even more. i know i won't be missed.


good day and good luck.


In reply to this comment by dag:
Sorry, but that is such complete and utter bullshit.

No one has been "banned for voicing their opinion" here.

Yes, we have grown a lot - and we have had to make adjustments. The bigger we are, the bigger target we make. And some individuals would like to hurt the Sift. Necro-spamming is an issue and we'll continue to make changes that we have to for the health of the community.


In reply to this comment by joemawlma:
this is what happens when a site gets too popular. creators abandon their most loyal early adopters because of a stupid disagreement. it's not like losing a few members will hurt your ad revenue bottom line. follow in digg's footsteps; that's what you've been trying to do since the beginning. and doing a fine job of it.

it's draconian to take away our ability to change or alter our own comments. and as far as the "breaking the comment flow" goes, people should be quoting the person they're speaking to when they respond in the first place. then it won't matter if a previous comment is taken away. reddit does it with the ">" symbol. pretty simple really.

oh well, time to move on for me anyway. i'll probably be banned for voicing my opinion too.

I'm not from the USA, UK, Iraq, Syria or Iran, quite glad i'm not. I know how bad the situation is in Iran, my brother is married to an Iranian woman.

However, Iran having nuclear weapons does not equal them actually using them. If Iran nuked Israel, Iran would effectively be wiped off the map, I can assure you that the Iranian goverment and clergy are fully aware of this. They 're crazy, but not that crazy.

Condemning Israel in my book is a good thing, their behavior towards Palestinians is horrible, I know quite a few people that have witnessed it first hand. Some of the stories almost made me sick to my stomach, 99% of the stuff that happens there doesn't get any media coverage. Also the South African intelligence minister recently said that the situation was far worse than apartheid was in S-Africa, he added that though Israel wasn't a fascist state, their actions against Palestine were.

It's this American attitude that they are always right, they have the right to boss everyone around, they are the ones with the right opinions, they have the right to have all kinds of bombs, they can sell someone WMD's and then invade the same country a few years later because "they might have WMD's", the insanity of them saying "he gassed his own people" when they themselves gassed a whole country a few decades back and have yet to apolagize for it.

I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but I don't want any of the other nations to have them either. What's infuriating is the US attitude that they can dictate who has them. How do you think Iranians feel when they see McCain singing "bomb bomb bomb iran"?

Capische?

>>But her answer "not in mine" was pretty fucking good too.
>Yes it fits in hers, if she's human. She just doesn't want to admit the fact.

No, she was demonstrating a sense of humour and a flash of wit. I thought it was pretty good comeback from being so comprehensively owned. And i detected in her voice the realisation that she was maybe a little bit wrong. Because let's face it, she was 100% totally fucking looneytunes about the banana.

>That's called "denial", not "answering" (call it repartee if you want but it doesn't address the point that she herself brought up and lost mightily, hence the muffled reply indicating she was making a desperate and cowering last blow after the bell rang).

Yes. I agree with you, sorry if that disappoints.

>>you can sit there in your evolved (fatass) body getting all smug about logic and evidence, but you don't know the answers to the big questions.
>Neither do you, it seems.

I do not claim to.

>Otherwise I'm sure you'd be yapping all over trying to spread the "Good News", right?

That is not the only alternative to rejection of God.

>>I love (hate) how he skips over the whole "abiogenesis" thing, then explains about some lightning but doesn't say where the lightning comes from, etc. etc...
>Thanks for clarifying your use of irony there, I would have missed it otherwise.

Thanks for being smug.

>But calling everything "God" explains what exactly?

Nothing from a scientific standpoint.

>As for her, she almost didn't catch the whole banana thing, so I don't think trying to explain abiogenesis would have made any difference at this point.

That's what I didn't like, he tried to be all multisyllabic to show how clever he is, knowing it would be lost on her (cheap and unnecessary shot) but he didn't answer her very simple question... if you go back from seeds, and back, and back, you get to a point you can't explain. What's there? He didn't say "we don't know", he went on about evidence for the stuff that happened within our current sphere of knowledge. He dodged it.

>>Her point was, you can trace everything back to 0.00000000000001 seconds after the origin, but you have no idea what the origin is. Or the origin of the origin.
>Ok, let's say God did it. How did he do it? See, you don't know.

No I do not. But that doesn't bother me and I am not about to pretend that reducing everything to one viewpoint and acting smug on the internet is a better position than "don't know".

>Why don't you pray "God" for an answer then?

Because I don't really pray to god. Not like you imply anyway.

>Or is it a trade secret?

You know absolutely nothing about me but you assume a great deal. Is that scientific?

>You can't even prove to me that there is a God, much less that he has actually made or caused anything.

I don't have to give you proof just because you ask for it. And I freely admit to not having scientific proof of God. I don't think that would be possible. Hence the word "belief" which is scary to some people because they like all their ducks lined up in a row.

>In fact most "proofs" of God start by saying somesuch effect "couldn't" have been caused by something other that God. But that's going backwards (not to mention it's a flagrant display of smug ignorance).

You think this is the first debate about God i have ever read on the internet? Thanks for the info.

>>God is everything. That doesn't make sense to smug atheist assholes but hey, God doesn't really give a fuck about making sense to smug atheist assholes, that's not his gig.
>So what's his gig? Shoving bananas up your ass?

I think it's great you ended your brilliant argument that way.

This stuff never happens to me....