I have no problem feeling sympathy for him, and I think Craig makes a good point. I laughed at him, but I've stopped laughing now and realised his life may be genuinely unravelling. I watched an excerpt of his ustream video, where he started by sending his love to his five kids (!), before it quickly degenerated into sadness.

This shit must be pretty scary for those kids.

He split the yes vote. I mean, that's what he did. It's like me writing a poll:

Should KP be stripped of his clothing?
-Yes (10 votes)
-No, he probably shouldn't. (7 votes)
-No, but that would be hilarious. (4 votes)
-No, why is this even a poll?! (8 votes)
-No, because I don't want to see that. (7 votes)

>> ^kronosposeid
on:

Who says you can combine two choices into one so you can declare a tie or a victory over a third choice? The 'no' voters have the plurality, so we won. If a plurality was good enough to get Slick Willie elected in 1992 then it's good enough for our little pack of nerd/degenerates.

Who says you can combine two choices into one so you can declare a tie or a victory over a third choice? The 'no' voters have the plurality, so we won. If a plurality was good enough to get Slick Willie elected in 1992 then it's good enough for our little pack of nerd/degenerates. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dag:


OK, so, here's the way I think we should interpret this:

No distinct pages about members in the Wiki.

No self-created member pages or profiles in the Wiki.

Sifters may be referenced in articles about historical or culturally significant Sift events - but any links to the Sifter should go to their Sift profile.

Any mention of any Sifter should be free of opinion and as fact-based as possible
>> ^residue:
It's be neat to be able to read some history of the bigger-name sifters, I guess crowned members? Should be self-authored though IMHO

But it was a tie. 12 +12 = 24 for yes. 24 for no.

Case and point-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1034676/

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
Where's your proof?!
In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
Vascular degeneration is real

Vascular degeneration is real

>> ^MaxWilder:

Only if they show some sign they are trying to learn. Otherwise they deserve to be mocked.


@MaxWilder But when has mocking ever been a successful tool for social change? Take Sarah Palin as just one example. She's mocked publicly on pretty much a daily basis yet you don't see her changing her opinions, do you? What you do see is people rallying to defend her from the "lib-tard smear campaign." And from there it just degenerates into name-calling and and rhetoric and there's no real dialogue about any issue. I don't think mocking help matters at all and in most cases just makes it worse.

@AnimalsForCrackers

I'd ask kindly that you respond what I write and not whatever "hidden meaning" you think my message has--there is none. I write as clearly as possible but if there is some ambiguity about what I wrote, how about you just ask me my opinion rather than make off-the-wall accusations and assumptions? Also, I'll ask once again (you'll remember from the last thread we had a discussion in), could you put an @ in front of my name when you respond to my posts so I get an email that tells me you're commenting about me and I can reply (thanks for the heads-up @bmacs27)?

MLK never insulted or condescended towards those he opposed. He advocated dialogue to promote change, not name-calling. He inspired people to find their commonalities, not focus on their differences. He did organize people to change the status quo and he did it without the need to be "militaristic" in any sense of the word.

I agree with you that secularists would be a great replacement name for atheists who believe the things you talked about (people should be free to practice religion, but it shouldn't invade politics or religion). But that's not what Harris and the rest have been talking about recently--as I demonstrated by doing you the courtesy a less-than-5-minute Google search and finding those three quotes/talks and pointing out what Harris said in this video clip.

Given the ease with which I found those it should be no problem for you to do me the same courtesy and send me links showing the three gentlemen expressing the views you claim to be their true position (there is in fact one video here on the Sift from Dawkins giving an interview in the UK--sorry, can't seem to find it in the search at the moment--from about 4 years ago where he puts out such a stance, but more recent comments seem to indicate that he's moved away from tolerance and more towards open hostility).

On a side note, what exactly is "religion" doing to "your country" (I'm guessing the US)? Are the Jains destroying the separation of church and state? How about those Quakers, can you imagine the damage their doing? And let's not even get started talking about the Buddhists. You accused me of not using words accurately, but I get the sense you're not using the word "religion" accurately. I think (feel free to clarify) that when you say religion what you really mean is fundamentalist Christians who believe the US in a "Christian nation" are ruining the USA. And that's fine, if you believe that, but let's not confuse a very vocal minority of religious believers with "religion."

Why don't I rail against religion? Because my position is that religion is not the problem (as I think I've told you in other threads). I've said repeatedly that religion is a tool that can be used for good or for evil and that the challenge for religions in the 21st century is going to be to try to change themselves so that they maximize the good and minimize the potential for evil. Are bad things done in the name of religion? Yeah, all the time. That doesn't de facto make religion bad, though. But I will absolutely criticize specific actions which I think are wrong, like I did on this other vid--I'm an equal opportunity critic.

You perceive religion as a threat, apparently. I don't. That's the difference between us. I'm happy to hear your views on why you think it is a threat. I'd be even happier if you listened to mine on why I don't think it is without getting either hostile or emotional.

Who stands around waving signs in the first place? Get jobs, you filthy degenerates.

You know...the others...

What? You mean those black communazi gay degenerates that only exist in my paranoid nightmares fueled by a phobia of anything even the slightest bit different to me? Those others?

Democrats need a new slogan. "QQ Moar Republicans"

er... Ellen Degenerating Joint Cartilage...?

>> ^kymbos:

I love the way it degenerates into an 'American Conversation' in which both people talk and neither listens.


I find it amusing to note that yet again, it's the conservative side that is the first to interrupt the person speaking.

If alcohol is legal..then so should weed. It doesn't get any simpler than that. The guy's argument about how it gives a legal platform for the mexican cartels is standard fearmongering..they make all their money BECAUSE it's illegal. Legalize it..grow it in the US by US citizens and those mexican drug cartels lose a LOT of their income. Smaller prison population...more tax revenue. more freedom. win win win win.

Who do you think helps fund the opposition to legalization?

I love the way it degenerates into an 'American Conversation' in which both people talk and neither listens.

This post seems to be degenerating into a feud between two members. Any constructive solutions like giving a warning or whatever for deading live videos? I don't know.

a video has to be declared dead twice before sifty kills it. it's a safety net, protecting those precious family guy videos from degenerate assholes like qualm. noone wants to see peter griffin buried alive more than i do. but qualms actions are violent and spiteful. they should be considered attempted murder and he should be punished to the full extent of siftbot's authority.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Alive, declared dead:
http://videosift.com/video/Steven-Colbert-RIP-Gary-Gygax?lo
adcomm=1#comment-1031522

You mean that neanderthal degenerate? Yeah, that's me >> ^gwiz665:

@Hybrid was that you in the white trunks..? Don't lie to me now.

@blankfist, you're right, I'm pathological because I thought you implied a causal link.

What was it you said again? Oh yes, it was this:

I also disagree with the welfare state because it can cause a generations of people to be lazy (from abundance to complacency). I can say that safely because I see it directly with people on a Native American reservation.

...

They learn from the previous generations to have abusive and addictive personalities. Usually that means child abuse (which happens way too much), alcoholism, drug addiction and gambling.

What did I say again?

blankfist, you mean to tell us Native Americans on reservations were once rich and industrious, but welfare checks turned them into poverty-stricken drug-addicted violent degenerates?

What is it about my comments that turns you into a big ball of personal attacks?

I mean seriously, you're coming just shy of calling me an outright liar, when I basically just asked if I was hearing you right because I found what you said so shockingly misguided, I couldn't really believe I'd read it right.

I can agree with Throbbin's contention that what we're doing with reservations is only having the effect of perpetuating a bad situation, and not doing anything to correct it; but it seems to me that there are a huge number of factors holding them back, and aid money alone is never going to fix a wide array of deep, systemic problems like you have with reservations.

But you appear to be making an altogether different argument. You seem to be saying that the situation on Native American reservations was not only caused by aid attempts, but that this is somehow analogous to the entire raft of programs that make up a modern welfare state like Denmark.

That seems crazy to me, and I can't quite believe you really think it's true. So, I asked "is this really what you think?"