>> ^quantumushroom:

If you support gay marriage, you support polygamy by default.

Bullshit. Polygamy is defined by wikipedia as a marriage which includes more than two partners. Or would you prefer websters, which defines it as marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time. The fact that a marriage contains two wives or two husbands does not make it polygamous.

>> ^quantumushroom:

At least you, @ChaosEngine have the stones to actually support both. I'd even go so far as to agree with you, with the exception that I'll freely admit there are/will be many unforeseen problems with both gay marriage and polygamy.


We've had gay marriage (actually civil unions but marriage in all but name) in NZ for years now. Society has failed to collapse. Are there potential issues with polygamy? Undoubtedly. Hell, I'll admit that there are potential issues with gay marriage. Thing is, there are issues with marriage, period. Even in a committed monogamous heterosexual marriage, there's all kinds of problems, because people are flawed. Being gay or polygamous doesn't make them any more or less flawed. I'd prefer we dropped the polygamous angle now, since it's derailing the conversation. I don't mind debating it, but I feel it's orthogonal to this issue.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I don't equate pedophilia with homosexuality. What I dispute is your confidence that within 20 years, whatever authority you believe the State will have to prevent pedophile "unions" will still exist.

Well, the state grants the marriage licence. I see no proposal to change that, so the authority will remain intact. As for allowing pedophile "unions", how does gay marriage affect that? Age of consent is a well defined concept that applies to everyone, heterosexual or homosexual.

I really am getting tired of repeating this, but context, nuance, judgement. Think is not a four letter word. The world is not black and white, and it is an oversimplification to view it as such. War is sometimes justified, lying is sometimes the right thing to do and I am comfortable making the distinction between a union of two consenting adults and an adult and a child. Why? Because I can weigh up the merits of each individual case and make a judgement.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If no one here has a problem with california or any state revoking election results, aka the will of the people, welcome to fascism.

Fascism? Are you actually serious? Leaving aside how much fascists really don't like homosexuality, you have completely failed to understand democracy.

There are already well defined limits on the will of the people. To use your own analogy, how would you feel if california had passed an amedment legalising pedophilia?

Yup.

I think Newt's gonna get the nom. Please please please. I guess this is how repubs felt last time: hoping a tight nomination contest will derail things.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
BTW, Santorum ended up winning the Iowa caucus after all by a small handful of votes that were misplaced. You called it.

Hmm..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concision

No, I think in this case it may be just poorly said and without proper set-up.
I don't mind a long topic, just organize it better before you go on air.
The topics of conversation jump around quite a bit here.

It's like a well laid out essay vs. a poorly constructed layout.
I've been around professional voice presenters all my life from both Radio and News. The woman here sounds like she keeps trying to keep things on topic but the MAx keeps derailing the conversation, mostly due to his style - listen to this without watching it, he just sounds uncouth and possibly drunk (maybe not - but he sounds like he is).

That's just my opinion. I know many people like Max Keiser mainly because he makes some good points and cut through some of the Bullsh!t and knows what he is saying, but he is also hard to follow because he jumps around so much. This is fine for you and me but as a man in the profession of speaking, I think he can arrange his tops a bit better. If he can't, at least give him an assistant that can arrange his notes for him before going on air. ...Or is that what his co-host is trying to do??

Also, The topic here is "Woman Offers Favors for Chicken McNuggets" - I had to listen through 11 minutes and 45 seconds before getting to that story. I stand by my point
Edit: and that was just an into sentence to something else altogether - Me thinks the title was a ploy!

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Sagemind:
Too long - make your point and move on...
Upvote made based on first 5 mins only

That's what's called "concision" and it's the reason why Noam Chomsky was never on Nightline.

I dont like TYT because Cyncky dink is an arrogant, pompous fool. I love how he generalizes. Yes, many Ron Paul supporters think he can't do wrong or that his policies will be miracle balm. But many, like me, just like the fact that he states some obvious truths--that he reaches both the liberal and conservative side. That he is electable and hated proves such.

This is Cyncky dink. "All Ron Paul supporters are crazy. All Muslims support Jihad. All blacks eat watermelon..."

Its funny, the reason he does this is transparent. He wants to make a mockery of those he puts down--by doing so he derails them and their legitimacy.

Yeah, I think he might be autistic. I'm going to go easy on him.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
this marbles character is starting to get on my nerves.
i truly think he has something to say if he could just get the fuck over himself.
this is like the 5th thread i have watched him derail due to his pettiness.

this marbles character is starting to get on my nerves.
i truly think he has something to say if he could just get the fuck over himself.
this is like the 5th thread i have watched him derail due to his pettiness.

>> ^hpqp:

So let me paraphrase:
Derp: "Hey herp, stop protecting your kid, I want to torture it, kill its friends and make it hate you for abandoning it."
Herp: "Sure, torture away!"
Million dollar question: is Herp a moral person/being?
Bonus question: if Herp is all-powerful, what is he protecting his kid from in the first place?


I agree 100% with what you wrote here. The Book of Job presents a major contradiction to the idea of a benevolent, omniscient God. Which is why I think Dan Barker majorly dropped the ball here on what should have been a slam dunk.

>> ^hpqp:

But the whole point here is that the religious mindset causes an otherwise moral person (they all agreed the first scenario was wrong) to condone an immoral action if it was for religious reasons. Case in point: suicide and murder in Islam, both major "sins", are seen as okay if part of Jihad.


See, if this was Dan Barker's point, I think he screwed it up royally. He's comparing apples and oranges. I can do the same thing he did and get the same results with a completely non-religious issue:

Let's say someone breaks in a family's home in the middle of the night and terrorizes them--holds them at gunpoint, ties them up, and tortures them (similar to the original example). After having his way with them for some time, the criminal starts to kill each family member in front of the others, starting with the kids. After killing the wife, the criminal is about to kill the husband when the husband is able to break free of his bindings. A struggle ensues and the husband overcomes the criminal and ties the criminal up.

Now, remember, the criminal is secure. The husband makes sure the binds are tight and the criminal can't go anywhere. Instead of calling the police, though, the husband picks up the criminal's gun and shoots the criminal right in the head, instantly killing him. Is the husband a murderer?

I think you would find a majority of people who say yes.

The criminal was subdued and no longer a threat. In the American legal system, the husband would most likely be found guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter. It was clearly a revenge killing and the only thing in question really is the mental state of the husband at the time it takes place: was he upset enough that it was manslaughter or did he do it in cold blood?

Now, let's change the scenario slightly. The husband never breaks free. The criminal gleefully and cruelly kills him. After fleeing from the scene of the crime, the criminal later is captured by police and put on trial for his crimes. He's found guilty on all counts due to overwhelming evidence and is sentenced to death. After a lengthy appeals process that takes over a decade, the death sentence is carried out by the state.

Question: Is the state guilty of murder?

You will find that far fewer people are willing to say that the state is guilty of murder. But why don't they? Isn't it the same situation? The criminal is just as guilty of the crimes in either case--the trial just made the guilt official. The criminal has been apprehended and is secure in prison. Surrounded by thick walls, steel bars, and armed guards, he no longer represents a threat to the public. At his execution he is tied down and given a lethal injection (which is dissimilar from being tied up and shot in the head really only in the amount mess that needs to be cleaned up afterwards).

So what's different? What's "clouding the moral judgment" of the people who declare the husband guilty of murder but won't declare the state guilty of murder? Aren't they contradicting themselves?

No, not really. The answer is simply that people attribute different rights to people than they do to government. Almost any basic definition of government requires that government be authorized to use force to obtain compliance from the governed (see Weber's theory)--up too and including lethal force. People who don't believe the state to be guilty of murder believe the state has the right to deprive those who commit serious enough crimes of their life (for a variety of stated reasons such as discouraging other criminals, providing justice for the victims, etc.). An individual, on the other hand, does not have such a right. In other words, it's immoral for the individual to redress the wrong themselves, but it isn't immoral for the state to do so, according to death penalty proponents, on the basis of individual and governmental rights.

(For the record, I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. If you're interested in my reasons, please ask me on my profile rather than derail this thread).

And that is why Dan got the audience response he did. People agree that a human butchering another human is immoral, but ascribe a different set of rights to the Biblical God. In particular, in the more conservative Christian traditions, humans are seen as "belonging" to the Biblical God and to be done with as He pleases.

So I wasn't surprised at all at the response that Dan Barker got. He compared apples and oranges and then seemed surprise when people weren't willing to claim an apple was an orange. Given how ripe the Book of Job is for criticizing many of the basic tenets of Christian belief, I kind of face-palmed when I heard his argument. He had a great chance here to make some keen points (the ones @hpqp raised above) and he completely missed it, I think. What he certainly didn't show was that the audience condoned immoral actions by humans in the name of religion. He simply showed that Christians ascribe different rights to their god than they do to humans. He seems outraged by that, but--as I just showed above--many of us do the same sort of thing with non-religious institutions like government so I'm not sure why he seems so shocked.

So in summary--I didn't upvote because I found the argument to be weak-sauce.

Drive boy dog boy
Dirty numb angel boy
In the doorway boy
She was a-lipstick boy
She was a-beautiful boy
And tears boy
And all in your inner space boy
You had hands girls boy
And steel boy
You had chemicals boy
I've grown so close to you boy
And you just groan boy
She said come over come over
She smiled at you boy
[repeat]

Let your feelings slip boy
But never your mask boy
Random blonde boy
High density random
blonde boy
Blonde country
Blonde high density
You are my drug boy
You're real boy
Dog dirty dumb cracking boy
You're getting wet boy
Big big time boy
Acid bears boy
Babes and babes
And babes and babes
and babes
And remembering nothing boy
Do you like my tin horn boy
It gets wet like at Angel
derailed

You got a velvet mouth
You're so succelent and beautiful
Shimmering and dirty
Wonderful and hot time
On your telephone line
And God and everything
On your telephone
And in walks an angel

Look at me mum
Squatting pissed in the tube hole
At Tottenham Court Road
I just come out of the Ship
Talking to the most blonde
I ever met
Shouting lager lager lager lager
Shouting lager lager lager lager
Shouting lager lager lager lager
Shouting lager lager lager
Shouting mega mega
White thing
Mega mega white thing
Mega mega white thing
Mega mega
Shouting lager lager lager lager
Mega mega white thing
Mega mega white thing
So many things to see and do
in the tube hole
The blonde going back
to Romford
Mega mega mega going back
to Romford
Hi mum are you having fun
On your way
To a new age tension headache

I have been trying to save this comment stream from @shinyblurry's comment. I have asked shiny to make comments like this in the future on personal profile pages, and not muck up and derail conversations on a video's comment stream.

This thing is starting to snowball -- three Sifters have now taken him to task on this comment stream.

I beg of you, please make your comments on his personal profile page. None of this has to do with Jack Abramoff. There are some really incisive, intelligent and passionate comments being made about this video. I hope that any further comments made here are about the video.

I urge anyone who has a problem with shinyblurry to take it to his personal profile page.

Thanks.

Hey Yogi. I'll say the same thing I said to @shinyblurry and @mizila.

Could you take this conversation to your personal profile pages, and out of the comment stream on my video?

There is a really interesting conversation developing on that video that is threatening to be derailed into an off-topic pissing match.

Shinyblurry, do you see what has happened here? Again, this started with a personal comment directed out of left field, and now there are two other Sifters jumping in. None of this has anything to do with Jack Abramoff.

I'm not saying don't make the comments, I am asking, shiny, that you make them on personal profile pages and not on video comment streams.

Thanks.

In reply to this comment by Yogi:
>> ^shinyblurry:

Considering your two death threats against me and this comment, a pattern is starting to emerge. You clearly have some deep seated issues. You need to repent of this wickedness and ask God to heal you. Youre headed towards a fall with your faulty conscience, so you had best get right with God now, before it is too late to avoid it and you act on one of your impulses.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Wow, I can see what they are talking about...he is really charismatic. Him talking about all the evil he did, and for some reason, it was hard to hate him...amazing.

Oh I could still kick him violently in the back of the head and feel NOTHING. I wouldn't feel anything I would just go "Oh look he's dead...whatever" and walk on.



I don't remember ever threatening you. I know that I was typing a quote from a friend one time because I am not a veteran.

Howdy.

So I'll tell you what I told @shinyblurry....

I would appreciate it if you could take these personal comments to the personal profile page instead of mucking up the comment stream of my video.

Shiny, this is exactly why I asked you to refrain from making comments like you did -- the comment stream is in danger of getting derailed, and once again, it started with one of your comments.

There is a really interesting conversation going on that video. Please, I beg of you both, let it develop in peace, on topic.

In reply to this comment by mizila:
>> ^shinyblurry:
(my version of)GOD IS GREAT BLAH BLAH BURN IN (my version of) HELL SINNER BLAH BLAH


the coShinyblurry the only pattern emerging around here is a pattern of you being a self-righteous douchebag. Shouldn't you be in church right now? Go away.

"You want a job, right?" KAPOW! Herman Cain's poll numbers shoot up even higher amongst republicans as he promises jobs for sexual favors.

Seriously, tell me this is finally gonna derail the bad practical joke that is the Cain Train.

Not to derail too much, but I watched that episode. Cornell West showed far more restraint than I could have. I probably would have punched Ron Christie in the throat for attempting to maintain that the Iraq War was still a good idea. I love how he invokes the three thousand people who died on 9/11 but conveniently ignores the hundreds of thousands who died in the following wars.

^Not cool. I don't like that. Powerless to do a damn thing about it, except register my protest. @Yogi. I protest.

[edit] And I hope this doesn't derail the whole comment stream. This Grayson/O'Rourke dust up is interesting, there are things to be said about the video. I hope this doesn't turn into a squabble match about the word "faggot." I'm backing out of this right now. I said my say. I don't like what yogi said. I only register my protest so that if some casual VS visitor sees yogi's comment, they don't think that everyone on the Sift is okay with the casual bigotry. This is the way I have figured out how to deal with asshat comments without getting accused of censorship. I have achieved my objective. I'm done with this conversation.

Um, sorry, I don't agree with this -- are you implying that @quantumushroom should be banned?

You talk of derailment -- that only happens when folks choose to engage. It takes two -- or more -- to derail. He drives you nuts? Stop engaging with him. Then he is reduced to one comment and then silence. Works great.

I don't agree with him, hardly at all, ever, but I will defend his right to be here. Besides, he is much less offensive and combative than many others on the Sift. In fact, I can't remember him personally attacking anyone. But then, my memory is shite.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Ok, I think we've actually put up with QMs bullshit for long enough. He has crossed the line from being a misguided, moronic, but occasionally funny, troll into either deliberate spiteful trolling or full-on bigoted fuckwadery. I fail to see how his contribution to this community outweighs the numerous threads he has derailed with his own unique brand of portmanteau-based idiocy.
HERP DERP, I'll call it "the Gay"... for fucks sake, grow up. I haven't hit anyone outside of a dojo in years, but I think I'd punch you in the face if I met you.
And actually, while I'm on the subject, who fucking cares if being gay is a choice? If two consenting adults decide they want to screw each other, who is anyone to tell them not to?
Man, I've got to stop watching american politics on this site. It's so depressing to watch the worlds biggest economy dictated by a political scene that the rest of the world regards as frankly retarded. Honestly, when Obama came along I had some hope, but it's just more of the same shit.