First of all, let me say thank you for the reasoned arguments. As liberalsift's only "conservatarian" a heavy (voluntary) responsibility weigh on my shoulders. I'll attempt to address the talking points.


Native Americans practiced same-sex coupling. Thousands of years even before that, there's evidence of humans pairing off for mutual protection and cooperation - two prehistoric dudes have a better chance of taking down large game than if they worked alone. Two female cave girls have a better chance of surviving and avoiding being raped by cave dudes than if they were separate.

But what you're describing isn't marriage, and even if there were homosexual acts under these circumstances, it's not something the tribe would recognize. Even the ancient Greek pederasts scoffed at the idea of gay marriage.

Same-sex coupling has existed as long as humans have. Hell, even modern day penguins are known to engage in same-sex coupling.

We shouldn't be looking to the animal kingdom for comparisons, where cannibalism and killing other beasts' offspring is normal.

Before people cite the Book of Matthew, let me remind them that "Man shall not lay with another man..." doesn't refer to homosexuality. There wasn't even a word for it when the bible was authored. The line references how we are not to treat men the same way we treat women. And just how were women treated during the days of the bible's authoring? Like cattle - merely objects to be bought, sold, and bartered for. The line speaks that we should not enslave men the way we enslave women. The line speaks to institutionalized misogyny, and has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.

I have never heard this interpretation of Matthew so I remain...neutral.

The first amendment guarantees us freedom of religion. It also guarantees us freedom FROM religion. Every law needs a secular reason for existing. "God says it's wrong" isn't, nor will ever be, reason enough for a law. The 14th amendment guarantees equal rights and freedoms, even to people you don't like.

The First Amendment does NOT guarantee freedom "from" religion, this deliberate distortion is a 'gift' Progressivism. Equal rights and freedoms have very obvious limitations. You're free to ride a bicycle and you're free to drive a car on the freeway, but you're NOT free to ride your bicycle on the freeway.

The Judicial branch did it's job - protecting the people from themselves. Just because the majority voted for something doesn't mean jack shit. If it's unconstitutional, it won't fly, no matter how big the majority.

A judge made up things for a non-existent "right", similar to how abortion was made legal by non-existent privacy rights. Whether you agree with abortion or not, the ruling was inept and corrupt. There was a time when slavery was considered constitutional, so it's true that things change.

And why is it "Small-Government" types always try to use the government to enforce their religious views? Seems HYPOCRITICAL to me.

Some libertarians vouch for the "privatization of marriage" which means the State doesn't recognize any marriage but can only enforce contracts between (any) people. (Unfortunately?) we don't live in a libertarian society---far from it---and the State (with much thanks to Statists) has its tentacles in all manner of arenas and areas in which it has no business. The main reasons governments evolved was to preserve private property rights and keep enemies outside the gates. Marriage is a legal contract, and since it affects taxation and a slew of other things it is the State's business, for better or worse.

For me, the gay "marriage" debate ended with the arrival of civil unions. If a gay couple has the same legal rights as a married couple, then that is, in essence, the libertarian goal. As Elton John put it: "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

Obviously the 'loudest' gays are not happy with "civil unions", which brings me to my next point: there is indeed something special about the one man/one woman marriage. If there was not, these gay pawns (the latest pawns of Progressive Statist subversives) wouldn't be so adamant. Except for the fundamentalists, no one could care less about people's personal lives....but if you force a majority to recognize something as being on par with what they consider sacrosanct, then it will be received negatively.

I would be personally delighted if some judge ruled---against the will of the people---that all controlled substances drugs be made legal, prostitution be made legal, all excessive federal hurdles to owning firearms be abolished, perhaps the income tax be replaced with something else.......but it's not the way the system works. As a member of society I am as much a "victim" of traditional values as everyone else.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Society is stupid. A large community of people in Germany decided killing Jews was ok (Godwin seekers you can now leave). It's a big reason we don't have a pure democracy: because people are STUPID. They're ignorant, they're fickle, they're quick to react to things they're afraid of and it is just plain stupid put somebody's rights to a vote, if that right isn't violating another person's rights.

Society is indeed stupid, but not all the time, and therefore the accumulated wisdom of centuries of trial and error shouldn't be readily abandoned.

----------------------------------------------------
Well, this is just one sifter's opinions. At present about 70% of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Perhaps in 10 years only 30% will be opposed and society's values will radically change.

HAHAHA! Yea being gay is the new "hip" thing that all the young kids are doing these days. Grandpa, is that you?

Society is stupid. A large community of people in Germany decided killing Jews was ok (Godwin seekers you can now leave). It's a big reason we don't have a pure democracy: because people are STUPID. They're ignorant, they're fickle, they're quick to react to things they're afraid of and it is just plain stupid put somebody's rights to a vote, if that right isn't violating another person's rights.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Same-sex "marriage" remains part and parcel of the "making shit up" argument. It's something that did not exist until very recently, and has never existed in any religion or society except in extremely limited instances with zero far-reaching consequences.
Society has a right to define what is best. That doesn't mean polygamists, cohabitators, gay couples, etc. are left out in the cold with no rights, it means since society has deemed a marriage of one man/one woman the way that works best, then that is the relationship held in highest esteem.
Olson can obfuscate however he wants, the fact is this GAY judge was acting as an activist, and had NO precedent for his decision to overturn the will of the people. Comparing gay equality to the Civil Rights movement is bogus...Civil Rights was about achieving the SAME rights, not special rights.
Why should the rest of us be forced at gunpoint to accept gay "marriage" as equal to traditional marriage? Tyranny of the minority is just as bad as the other way.

Fuck it. I like this place too much to go around burning bridges.

I'll have internet up there (sooner or later). However, internet speeds are pretty dismal up there, and bandwidth is expensive. So I'll be on FB and reading my news - but no VS unless I'm travelling in the south for work.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Ah, yeah. The polls are a bit fickle. I can understand his viewpoint and JS is a pretty big part of videosift with all the posts from TDS.

Anyway, keep your pants on for now. If there had been a person lining up to do something serious, like a channel idea, that one would likely have dropped too. Being patronized never works well, that happened to me too at one point... took a considerate amount of willpower not to rage out at that point.

If I make it over there, I'll give you plenty of head start.

Are you going to be without Internet when you move?

In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Yeah, I know it comes and goes. I'm moving on Wednesday, and I just didn't want to spent my last hours on VS with a cloud over my head.

Yeah, my poll was actually discarded.

http://videosift.com/poll/Which-of-these-people-was-most-influential-in-human-history?loadcomm=1#comment-974550

I thought it would generate some great discussion and debate and all that fun stuff. I understand the whole guidelines aspect, but when I saw that Jon Stewart poll I got miffed. Being equated with a petulant child just angried up my blood even more.

I like that Akvavit. If and when you do come over this way, do me a favour and give me plenty of lead time so I can let you know if I'll be in the south for a meeting or something.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Don't worry about it. Drama comes and goes, and take this from someone who's been in a lot of sift drama - it passes.

Was your poll actually discarded? I thought it just ran its course.

I may come across at some point and I will bring you a few bottles - that stuff'll kill ya! In a good way.

In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
I may take you up on that hug. I feel bad - all this drama I've created, none of which was my intention. I was just peeved that my soft poll was booted...

I hear you may come across the pond sometime. If you do, and we can arrange a little meet-up, bring over a botttle of Akvavit would ya? That's what we were drinking the night of our impromptu siftup vid, and it knocked me on my ass pretty good.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Naw man, iz all good. We've had fluffier polls before. The trouble with channel specific polls is that we have no easy way to get to them at this point, if they would be on their own subdomain for instance. And having multiple polls at once will likely be confusing.

If there's nothing else going on, a little soft poll - polls have never been softer - is fine, to keep people on their toes. As long as we don't overdo it.

and @Throbbin you can always get a comfort hug from me..

Ah, yeah. The polls are a bit fickle. I can understand his viewpoint and JS is a pretty big part of videosift with all the posts from TDS.

Anyway, keep your pants on for now. If there had been a person lining up to do something serious, like a channel idea, that one would likely have dropped too. Being patronized never works well, that happened to me too at one point... took a considerate amount of willpower not to rage out at that point.

If I make it over there, I'll give you plenty of head start.

Are you going to be without Internet when you move?

In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Yeah, I know it comes and goes. I'm moving on Wednesday, and I just didn't want to spent my last hours on VS with a cloud over my head.

Yeah, my poll was actually discarded.

http://videosift.com/poll/Which-of-these-people-was-most-influential-in-human-history?loadcomm=1#comment-974550

I thought it would generate some great discussion and debate and all that fun stuff. I understand the whole guidelines aspect, but when I saw that Jon Stewart poll I got miffed. Being equated with a petulant child just angried up my blood even more.

I like that Akvavit. If and when you do come over this way, do me a favour and give me plenty of lead time so I can let you know if I'll be in the south for a meeting or something.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Don't worry about it. Drama comes and goes, and take this from someone who's been in a lot of sift drama - it passes.

Was your poll actually discarded? I thought it just ran its course.

I may come across at some point and I will bring you a few bottles - that stuff'll kill ya! In a good way.

In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
I may take you up on that hug. I feel bad - all this drama I've created, none of which was my intention. I was just peeved that my soft poll was booted...

I hear you may come across the pond sometime. If you do, and we can arrange a little meet-up, bring over a botttle of Akvavit would ya? That's what we were drinking the night of our impromptu siftup vid, and it knocked me on my ass pretty good.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Naw man, iz all good. We've had fluffier polls before. The trouble with channel specific polls is that we have no easy way to get to them at this point, if they would be on their own subdomain for instance. And having multiple polls at once will likely be confusing.

If there's nothing else going on, a little soft poll - polls have never been softer - is fine, to keep people on their toes. As long as we don't overdo it.

and @Throbbin you can always get a comfort hug from me..

Nay would be my vote as well. I like the finality of the way it is now. We don't need to popularity of great vids to be affected by fickle fads.

I've got a lot of nitpicking to do on the second question (why hasn't cleanup tech advanced like drilling tech). Basically, he didn't give the obvious answer to the question, and Maddow didn't call him on it.

Survey say: $$$

Oil companies have massive financial motivation to improve drilling techniques. Better drilling means that previously unavailable fields can be tapped, which means more money. Better drilling and pumping technology probably means fewer drill-site spill incidents, and as they say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Fewer spills and better pumping means more money.

Oil companies have very little financial motivation to improve cleanup tech. Every barrel lost to a spill is a barrel that they don't get to sell, but that provides motivation to avoid spills entirely rather than clean them up more effectively.

The only thing they have to gain from good cleanup is a slight mitigation in the amount that the people affected by the spill hate them; a fantastic cleanup by BP in the current scenario might improve their short-term public image from a Chernobyl-level meltdown to a mere Three Mile Island. Playing the odds and hoping that the fickle public will quickly fade in its vitriol is probably much more financially viable.

Also, his answer that there aren't enough BIG spills to push forward the technology is actually a fairly honest one, it just gets docked points for evading the primary source ($). Maddow mentioned the volume of oil spilled in the first couple of incidents she listed (100,000 and 200,000 gallons). That sounds like a lot, but for that sort of volume I imagine that whether one is using magical 25th century petrol-eliminator rays or good 'ol iron-age shovels, the primary source of the cleanup (to the extent it even can be cleaned) is going to be human labor to operate whatever tools are available.

It would also be worthwhile to know how many gallons have been spilled (to date) in the current incident to compared to those other ones Maddow would suggest we should have learned from. I bet most of her list of incidents would be eliminated if one were to only include spills with a volume of at least 1/10th (or even 1/100th) of the current "big" spill. So I'd say that his statement that there have been few "big" spills like this is accurate. (Just did a quick google search and came up with 40 million gallon estimate -- so 1/100th of that would be 400,000 gallons, double the volume of the highest incident she mentioned)

I don't say these things to absolve BP of responsibility. I'm just saying that expecting them to have worked extremely hard to develop some sort of magical cleanup technology is ridiculous. The only way that we could encourage improvements in that arena is by making it clear that they are 100% financially responsible for fixing the leak and cleaning it up (again, to the extent that it even can be). But even then, they are going to get more bang for their buck by developing better drilling to hope to avoid spills entirely or make them easier to stop/plug than they would ever get a return on investing R&D dollars into cleanup.

>> ^Payback:
>> ^curiousity:
You are like a guitar which only has one string.

...and theists are different?


Please let me expand, because my point isn't atheists vs. theists. Memory is notoriously fickle, but it seems to me that every comment that I've read by honkeytonk73 has been mocking religion. I'm completely fine with that; I was just commenting that it seems to be the vast majority of what he says. Hence, a guitar with one string. I also avoid people that only talk about their religion.

It's cute. The Republicans have their own little rock star. And they can pout when she stands them up!

Quite fickle, too. "I love Palin! I'm gonna buy her book and stand in line to get her autograph because she's a maverick! What? She's not coming? Well, I ain't supportin' that good-fer-nothin' quitter!"

These people are so cookoo for cocoa puffs!

What's this fair-weather fan bullshit? So fickle!

I wish it were my top vid.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I like how Macgyver's tornado punch is your 3rd highest video...the sift is a fickle fickle place

I like how Macgyver's tornado punch is your 3rd highest video...the sift is a fickle fickle place

great poll my atheist friend.
i am quite up-front concerning my faith,but i rarely speak about it.
so i think this a proper forum to maybe share a tidbit with you all.
i had a wonderful conversation with IamtheBlurr.he was respectful and curious so the conversation was well balanced.i shall paste my final reply to him.i will not post what he sent me (it is public) because i dont feel that proper.
in our last correspondence he had asked me a slew of questions in which i attempted to answer to the best of my ability.
here is that reply:

you dont ask the small questions do you?/grins
IATB:Why do you believe what you have faith in?
enoch:why are you here?for what purpose do you serve?what is the meaning of existence?
i am not trying to berate you with rhetoric.just giving you the scope of your question.you might have well asked me "in one sentence explain the big bang and its relation to gravity and magnetic fields".the reasons why i have faith are complicated as they are simplistic.grand as they are minute.
if i had to answer in a short,finite sentence.i would say because there is more to the universe than we can comprehend,and that we are a part of something far greater,more beautiful than our limited perceptions can comprehend.could i be wrong? of course,i have to leave that option open,to attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible leaves a wide margin for error,hence the term faith and not "Know".it is also why i do not preach,or attempt to convince others of my righteousness.the closest i can come to explaining,and i most surely will fail,is that i have a sense of something behind the veil.it is not tangible but it is.it is etheric in nature..yet it is not.everytime i have found myself at a crossroads and attempted to control my destiny i met resistance,but when i surrendered to it,i was always led to the what i most needed and wanted at the time.
is that scientific? no.
do i have any conclusive proof other than anecdotal?no.
could it possibly be something "other"? yes.
if i would say yes to this,why say i have faith? because i have to leave that option open.just because we dont understand it now,does not mean mankind will not understand the mechanics of it later,and it is quite possible there is a totally scientific reason for it.
but if thats true,why say say you have "faith" at all? just because mankind can define or explain a universal mechanism does not detract from my faith.it only strengthens it.
IATB:Regarding philosophy, do you know the definition of the word “conjecture”?
enoch:yes,and it is a trap i try to avoid.sometimes i succeed,other times i fail.it is conversations like these that help me avoid such traps.it is easy to become comfortable when everybody is saying the same thing.challenge the idea and you may find yourself with not only a new way of thinking but a much crisper outlook.trimming the fat as they say.
IATB:That is to say, why do you believe what you believe?
Do you know of any beliefs that you hold which do not have supportive conclusive evidence?
enoch:just that we are a triune.mind=proven.we have one.body=proven.we have that also.spirit=unproven and no discernable test to date to even measure for one.hence the term "faith".
IATB:When I say, I don't believe that there is life on Mars, what do you think I am saying?
A) There is no life on Mars
B) I don't believe there is life on Mars.
C) Both of the above
enoch: B there has been no proof nor disproof of life on mars.there is conjecture based on certain enviromental conditions that may have,or has,supported life.but no actual proof as of yet.
IATB:What is a greater strength?
A) The ability to share ideas.
B) The ability to discern the truth of a shared idea.
enoch: this is a trick question for the answer is both.because they speak of a polarized polemic.one speaks of arbitrary sharing=good.
the other speaks of a personal ability to dissect and discern the shared idea.
both are good and have strengths.i think if you made A)the ability to share ideas without rebuttal or discussion.would have been a better statement for me to judge their strengths.

on a final note.understand that the way i perceive the universe and hence my faith would have had me burned at the stake for heresy a few hundred years ago.when i use the term "god" i am not referring to a masculine entity that resides outside space and time and watches over us as if we were a colony of ants.to dispense his wisdom and fickle judgment as a school yard bully distributes marbles.i use the term as a noun.my interpretation of god is subjective and is not based on any text or scripture.i adhere to no dogma at all.
to put things in their simplest form.the universe and everything within it..is god.
i am running out of time my friend so i will have to bring this to a close.
i hope i answered your questions satisfactorily and i hope the conversations continue.feel free to ask me more questions.i hope your car is coming along nicely.
till the next time..namaste.

I started out wanting to go with *Eire, decided there wouldn't be enough content, then I went ahead and made *Blues, changed it to Blues & Roots, which is where it's at now, although pending approval - but then I found out that *HipHop had an inactive manager, so I recently PM'd dag to inquire about that one.. I am a fickle fellow, it appears.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Nice pick Ollie! Thanks for that. Have you decided on a channel?

In reply to this comment by EndAll:
Haha, love the pie at the end.

I gotta agree with RM - fantastic songwriter, singer, storyteller in general. That last line made me smile.

*promote!

you dont ask the small questions do you?/grins
IATB:Why do you believe what you have faith in?
enoch:why are you here?for what purpose do you serve?what is the meaning of existence?
i am not trying to berate you with rhetoric.just giving you the scope of your question.you might have well asked me "in one sentence explain the big bang and its relation to gravity and magnetic fields".the reasons why i have faith are complicated as they are simplistic.grand as they are minute.
if i had to answer in a short,finite sentence.i would say because there is more to the universe than we can comprehend,and that we are a part of something far greater,more beautiful than our limited perceptions can comprehend.could i be wrong? of course,i have to leave that option open,to attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible leaves a wide margin for error,hence the term faith and not "Know".it is also why i do not preach,or attempt to convince others of my righteousness.the closest i can come to explaining,and i most surely will fail,is that i have a sense of something behind the veil.it is not tangible but it is.it is etheric in nature..yet it is not.everytime i have found myself at a crossroads and attempted to control my destiny i met resistance,but when i surrendered to it,i was always led to the what i most needed and wanted at the time.
is that scientific? no.
do i have any conclusive proof other than anecdotal?no.
could it possibly be something "other"? yes.
if i would say yes to this,why say i have faith? because i have to leave that option open.just because we dont understand it now,does not mean mankind will not understand the mechanics of it later,and it is quite possible there is a totally scientific reason for it.
but if thats true,why say say you have "faith" at all? just because mankind can define or explain a universal mechanism does not detract from my faith.it only strengthens it.
IATB:Regarding philosophy, do you know the definition of the word “conjecture”?
enoch:yes,and it is a trap i try to avoid.sometimes i succeed,other times i fail.it is conversations like these that help me avoid such traps.it is easy to become comfortable when everybody is saying the same thing.challenge the idea and you may find yourself with not only a new way of thinking but a much crisper outlook.trimming the fat as they say.
IATB:That is to say, why do you believe what you believe?
Do you know of any beliefs that you hold which do not have supportive conclusive evidence?
enoch:just that we are a triune.mind=proven.we have one.body=proven.we have that also.spirit=unproven and no discernable test to date to even measure for one.hence the term "faith".
IATB:When I say, I don't believe that there is life on Mars, what do you think I am saying?
A) There is no life on Mars
B) I don't believe there is life on Mars.
C) Both of the above
enoch: B there has been no proof nor disproof of life on mars.there is conjecture based on certain enviromental conditions that may have,or has,supported life.but no actual proof as of yet.
IATB:What is a greater strength?
A) The ability to share ideas.
B) The ability to discern the truth of a shared idea.
enoch: this is a trick question for the answer is both.because they speak of a polarized polemic.one speaks of arbitrary sharing=good.
the other speaks of a personal ability to dissect and discern the shared idea.
both are good and have strengths.i think if you made A)the ability to share ideas without rebuttal or discussion.would have been a better statement for me to judge their strengths.

on a final note.understand that the way i perceive the universe and hence my faith would have had me burned at the stake for heresy a few hundred years ago.when i use the term "god" i am not referring to a masculine entity that resides outside space and time and watches over us as if we were a colony of ants.to dispense his wisdom and fickle judgment as a school yard bully distributes marbles.i use the term as a noun.my interpretation of god is subjective and is not based on any text or scripture.i adhere to no dogma at all.
to put things in their simplest form.the universe and everything within it..is god.
i am running out of time my friend so i will have to bring this to a close.
i hope i answered your questions satisfactorily and i hope the conversations continue.feel free to ask me more questions.i hope your car is coming along nicely.
till the next time..namaste.

how fickle. .. because of jack black i like it, yet hide him and im not interested. Voice talent over other elements of game play? intriguing theory.