I saw the discussion of Oswald, but I don't think that's what the increasingly fuzzy memory was about. In large part because Oswald -was- created by one of Disney's employees. I suppose it's possible that I completely inverted the issue over the course of a few years, but I hope not. Call it ego if you will, but I like to believe I keep at least the general idea correct.
>> ^Sagemind:

You may be thinking of "Oswald the Rabbit"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_the_Lucky_Rabbit
Mickey Mouse was created early in 1928 on a train ride from New York to Los Angeles as Walt was returning with his wife from a business meeting at which he lost the copyright of his cartoon, Oswald the Rabbit. Walt spent the train ride thinking up a little mouse in red velvet pants and named him “Mortimer,” but by the time the ride was over, had changed his name to “Mickey.”
Oswald was also a knockoff of many cartoon characters of the time, most notably Felix the Cat.
An intersting discussion on the subject.:
http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/did-walt-steal-the-idea-of-micke
y.78437/
>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^Stormsinger:
Disney's biggest selling features, like Mickey Mouse and the Lion King, were clearly stolen from other artist's work.

You're definitely right about The Lion King, but what was Mickey Mouse stolen from? The only character I can think of is Oswald, but that was a Disney creation as well.
(and I think Star Wars should be just fine at Disney -- it's hard to argue that they've done anything but a bang-up job with Marvel's cinematic output, and presumably they'll put the same thought and care into future Star Wars films)

You may be right...there was a toy that some claim Mortimer/Mickey was copied from, but that's not what I was remembering. Sadly, I cannot find any reference to what I thought I remembered, so I'll have to drop Mickey as an example.
However, few of Disney's big films were original stories, he had a penchant for taking public domain IP and using it (The Brothers Grimm, and Hans Christian Anderson for example)...then, as we all know, buying politicians to make sure that his own copyrights would never expire. Still a form of theft, but not quite as severe.
Bottom line, it's not a company I care to patronize...but Star Wars is not a property I care about either, so it's a fairly moot point to me.

I get all warm and fuzzy inside when poetry does well on the sift.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by ponceleon.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/A-Warm-Fuzzy-Shining-Trailer

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Stingray. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

And NOW, with the current situation in play and we now know how Mitt feels for a vast swath of America. He most likely ALSO hated this person in a wheelchair for being disabled too.

Really there isn't a way to defend him unless you have truly given up your intelligence and given fully into opinion and ignorance, because it makes your stomach more "fuzzy".

Too many people now in America need to wake up to the reality of what this world REALLY IS! There isn't a unicorn. There isn't a mystical force stopping rape pregnancies. There isn't a magical non-person free-market that just regulates itself into pure equality and use for all. There is no Gods, which leaves you with a SERIOUS question NO MATTER WHAT FAITH you belong to, is there a God at all? The two-party setup is a mere cultural and sociological play of what is essentially a difference in people's fundamental psychology. Though we like to pretend conservative or liberal values are MORE than they really are, they are illusions created by our minds--as fake as any religion other than YOURS... That last word, really, really should mean something to somebody that doesn't quite get psychology and the absolute BLANKET and hallucinatory world it can proceed to give to our brains that is just as real as reality--so if you understand psychology is a POTENT little thing that runs our lives...

Mitt is just as lost as everyone else. Not only does he do what his idiotic psychology tells him to do, completely being an ass. But, he is fully unaware that he is FULLY inside the grip of ignorance and his own self-created ego trip. That is why it is so utterly hard to reach any of these people and talk to them about a TRUE compromise or negotiation. They just say the words and nod their heads, but you never truly got through to a person that understands themselves OR more importantly reality, even to the smallest extent.

This is why education is so vitally important, because we MUST give our kids the tools necessary to be able to make the final leap in self-consciousness that for some reason so many seem to never get there and get sidelined in the various vices of life--or more precisely the mind and your psyche.

Some people are just a record, playing in a loop. The rest are playlists, with thousands, or perhaps hundreds of songs. BUT, the people that UNDERSTAND are the people that can design the program that makes the playlists and moreover they make the music that those with the playlists or the record listen to. THAT is the difference.

They are the ones beckoning to you to LEARN, not to CHANGE, but to LEARN! Change will come when you see like they do...
----

Mitt had no reason to be like that. Something tells me if Mitt truly ever talked a mental health professional he would be diagnosed with something... Just my guess (like narcissistic personality disorder--but, I'd have to see even more of Mitt to be certain).

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think it's porn - soft core, but still. I know it's all subjective, and it's a grey fuzzy line, but I think this one falls on the porn side. The Britta one falls on the other side, IMHO - because it's just nudity without any real sexual content. Let's *discuss again, but I think this will have to go.

Nothing strange here. He was clearly just taking his fuzzy pet could for a walk.

There has always been "a lot of frightening shit on the horizon", no matter what decade you lived in. For every person that looks back at the 1950s as idyllic and calm there is somebody who was convinced their life would end that year in a nuclear war. Same goes for any other time period. Myself, I was convinced at the time that there would be nuclear war when the Soviets shot down that Korean passenger jet in September 1983. And now it's been pretty much forgotten.

I've been affected by the economic downturn over the past 10 years, just like everyone I know. And I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling about the future of the economy either. But as someone said, there never was the "good old days", things have always been changing and in turmoil in some respect. I take all the fearful predictions with a grain of salt. >> ^Jinx:

idk, I think there is a certain amount of truth in this. I mean ok, I don't think we'll be seeing blood running in the streets but idk, there is a lot of frightening shit on the horizon and I do wonder how well we'll adapt and how much growing pains will be involved.

@ReverendTed
You have been a courteous sparring partner so I will try to answer in kind, but I must admit being very exasperated by your last response. Moreover, I do not think I want to pursue a debate with someone who cannot see how adoption-in-place-of-abortion is neither feasible nor even remotely ethical (vis-à-vis the woman, the would-be child and human society in general). So this will probably be my last wall of self-indulgent dross.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: we both agree that we need more education all ‘round, on all subjects. And as you know, those most opposed to it are the same that are against abortion. Abstinence education is redundant when proper sex-ed is given, because it goes without saying that “no sex = no unwanted pregnancies” is a part of basic sex-ed. Of course, it is un-pragmatic to expect teenagers (or anyone for that matter) to forego sex, so why harp on it, other than for misguided religious purposes?

Your conception of consciousness is fuzzy at best. Everything we feel, experience, etc. is due to electro-chemical reactions in our body/brain. Magical thinking is saying some non-physical “me” exists attached to it, what religious people call a soul. Consciousness is not subordinate to cognition in terms of value, but in the sense that without the one (cognition) you simply don’t have the other (“subordinate” as in “dependent upon”). I mentioned blind-from-birth people for a good reason; they have no visual aspect to their consciousness, their identity/consciousness is built upon the other sensory input. Now imagine a being that has zero sensory input (or a central system capable of making use/sense of it), and you have a mass of muscles/cells/organs devoid of consciousness. And that is what is aborted before the 25th week. I must make it clear, however, that even if this developed much earlier it would still be the woman’s prerogative to choose what she does with her own body/life. In that respect I think the “viability” argument is a pragmatic (albeit conservative) one, because it draws the line between an excrescence and a (possibly) autonomous being.

After the first two paragraphs, your response goes from bad to worse. What I said about adoption v abortion still stands, but I would add that it is still forcing women to go through a pregnancy they do not want (thus still affecting the quality of their lives), not to mention leaving them with the guilt of abandonment, the kids with issues, etc etc. And all for what? So some third person’s unfounded superstitions be upheld? And then you have the gall to compare criminalising abortion with criminalising incest and crazy people locking up/raping their families. You seriously need to think a bit before making comparisons. In the case of child abuse and/or rape (incest itself is a victimless crime, but that’s for a different discussion), there are actual victims, for one, and secondly, the crazies would lock them up whether it was legal or not, because it is a question of absolute control over the other.

Since you cite Guttmacher statistics, allow me to suggest you read a little more:

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

• Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So basically pushing for the criminalisation of abortion is pushing for there to be more abortions, and more dangerous ones.

You note how a large percentage of abortion-seekers are above the poverty line. Obviously, they can afford it / are aware of the possibility. Ever notice how the poor/uneducated tend to have more kids than the others? Do you really think being poor makes you want to have more mouths to feed? Or perhaps it is because they lack access to contraception/abortion (not to mention the poor/uneducated tend to be more religious; religion thrives on misery). Of the “developed” world the US is a bit of a special case, because it is so backward with regards to healthcare and contraception. Notice how most women in the US pay for their abortion out of pocket, and “Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/) As an aside, the religious right here in Switzerland (not as influential but almost as stupid and backward thinking as that of the US) are trying to make abortion be no longer covered by the universal healthcare system.

On the “potential” question, everything has been said. I’d simply point out that your “95%” potential leaves out something absolutely crucial, namely the choice of the woman to terminate the abortion, which can reduce that to “0%”. You say “it’s nearly guaranteed”, but so what? Two people having heterosexual vaginal sex without projection over a long period of time will conceive of a child, it’s “nearly guaranteed”, therefore every possible pairing of male and female should have continuous unprotected sex otherwise they are depriving potential beings from existing. “But what if they don’t want to?” Exactly, what if the woman doesn’t want a child at that moment? See how absurd the “potential” argument is?

I’ll risk making this wall of text even wallyer and propose an analogy, The Analogy of the Film and Camera. When you put a film in a camera, the potential for it becoming a strip of individual, unique photos goes up. But so long as no pictures are taken, so long as nothing is imprinted on the film’s receptive surface, you lose no individual photos by taking the film out, and there’s the same amount of potential if you put in a different film at a different time. It’s wonky, I know, but it illustrates that potential individual (the film) is not the same as existing individual (the photo), nor does destroying the first cause any damage to the second, because the second doesn’t exist yet.

The comparison with the IGB campaign is terribly inappropriate and simply false. In one case it is question of keeping living individuals from ending their lives, whereas abortion is about preventing eventual individuals from coming into existence because it would harm the quality of life of an already existing individual (as well as the one to be). IGB is about giving people options/hope, whereas criminalising abortion is about taking that away (from women, to give it to the mind projections of superstitious third parties). The only connection between the two is that in both cases the unsubstantiated beliefs of third persons impinge on an individual’s quality of life and liberty. I already addressed your “good from bad” argument, which you draw out again in an emotionally manipulative way (which frankly made me sick).

On eugenics, oh boy. What you’re saying is akin to saying “self-defence should be outlawed because otherwise some (like Zimmerman) might commit crimes and say it was self-defence”. Or, a little closer to home perhaps: “we shouldn’t have universal healthcare because some might fraud”. Yes, some people fraud the insurance, and yes, some people are aggressive and try to pass it as self-defence. That’s why we have a judicial system. Bringing in eugenics is seriously grasping at straws and you know it.

I’ll end my last contribution to this exchange with the following: having a child should never be an inevitability. Bringing a human life into existence is way too big a responsibility to be an obligation. A women’s body is her own, to deal with as she chooses, uterus and co. included.

Cheers

Aww, warm fuzzies. Thanks for the hypothetical ride, @CirSam. That really made me smile!

And @pumkinandstorm, you always make me grin!

>> ^pumkinandstorm:

>> ^UsesProzac:
>> ^pumkinandstorm:
So... @UsesProzac who gets to drive it?

I don't mind if I don't drive, as long as I have FULL control of radio and AC!

You got it baby! At least I know you have good taste in music!

I hope you know you are my fav sifter and not just for the fuzzy animal vids!

In reply to this comment by mintbbb:
Thanks! :

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
*quality

>> ^oritteropo:

I don't think most people would have that impression, unless they haven't been paying attention. You post less than 10% cat, unless there's something wrong with my methodology (and only 18% in the pets channel).
I enjoy quite a lot of your vids, and although I have no particular plans to watch this one, please keep posting what you like
>> ^mintbbb:
>> ^ponceleon:
Jesus Mintbbb,
You are an enigma to me; 4/5ths fuzzy happy kitten videos and 1/5th this...
BTW, the Mozart... choice.

Seriously, if the VS community sees me as a 'pure' submitter of banal cat videos, I can't help it. However, I have sifted over 3000 videos, and I am pretty sure most of them are not cat related.
Sure, I have submitted tons of videos of cats (though I'd prefer them being about dogs), but I do that if they make me happy. And there are times when I am actually happy, and I can submit just pure ewwwwwwww because I am evil
I will keep submitting all kind of crap even in the future, believe me!



Of course I was being hyperbolic, but I still stand by my assertion that it is really funny that the same person who posted the video of the puppy attacking the great dane's tail posts a pic of a sys-admin with cystic acne popping evil all over the floor...

I don't think most people would have that impression, unless they haven't been paying attention. You post less than 10% cat, unless there's something wrong with my methodology (and only 18% in the pets channel).

I enjoy quite a lot of your vids, and although I have no particular plans to watch this one, please keep posting what you like
>> ^mintbbb:

>> ^ponceleon:
Jesus Mintbbb,
You are an enigma to me; 4/5ths fuzzy happy kitten videos and 1/5th this...
BTW, the Mozart... choice.

Seriously, if the VS community sees me as a 'pure' submitter of banal cat videos, I can't help it. However, I have sifted over 3000 videos, and I am pretty sure most of them are not cat related.
Sure, I have submitted tons of videos of cats (though I'd prefer them being about dogs), but I do that if they make me happy. And there are times when I am actually happy, and I can submit just pure ewwwwwwww because I am evil
I will keep submitting all kind of crap even in the future, believe me!

>> ^ponceleon:

Jesus Mintbbb,
You are an enigma to me; 4/5ths fuzzy happy kitten videos and 1/5th this...
BTW, the Mozart... choice.


Seriously, if the VS community sees me as a 'pure' submitter of banal cat videos, I can't help it. However, I have sifted over 3000 videos, and I am pretty sure most of them are not cat related.

Sure, I have submitted tons of videos of cats (though I'd prefer them being about dogs), but I do that if they make me happy. And there are times when I am actually happy, and I can submit just pure ewwwwwwww because I am evil

I will keep submitting all kind of crap even in the future, believe me!