>> ^blankfist:
What a kooky Libertarian. This is how we all are.


He was praying to Ron Paul?

Wow.

>> ^blankfist:
What a kooky Libertarian. This is how we all are.


Sounds more like a whiny anarchist to me. I'm a libertarian and most of the libertarians I know understand the law and sometimes break stupid or unconstitutional ones intentionally to get them revoked before they become larger. I have, however, noticed Democrats getting scared of libertarian rationale and trying to turn the term into an insult.

Here's your libertarian example, and this guy is probably going to win:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtPFKX43lV8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN92YFfSc5U

What a kooky Libertarian. This is how we all are.

Would I have chastised you if Aemaeth was a Scientologist or polite Neo-Nazi? That's a very good question. Probably not. It depends.

I understand your disdain for the LDS. A long time ago I sublet some studio space to a recently converted Mormon, and had to endure the proselytizing every day. I agree, it's laughable at the least, and dangerous at the worst. But I put up with it because just prior to his conversion, his young son had died suddenly in his sleep, without any medical explanation. He had no real support from friends or family, and this was his "port in a storm" I guess. A Mormon must have knocked on his door at just the right (wrong) time. You would surely cite this as opportunistic and playing on the weak, and I wouldn't disagree. I think he shook it eventually and moved on to hard-core Ufology. Just as kooky, but I thought that was more interesting, at least.

I am as disgusted as you at the politicization of the church. Despite our recent victory in Connecticut, there's still a strong anti-gay sentiment brewing. We get robocalls about it all the time, somebody's trying to see if there is enough support for a referendum. I don't think my response was recorded though, since it was full of invective that couldn't be deciphered by the computer doing the calling.

I think you and I are probably politically and ideologically very similar. I can think of a few things we might not agree on, but for the most part I hazard the guess that we are like-minded. There's some contrast in how we go about it though. I think minds are fragile, and need to be opened carefully because otherwise they break or snap shut for good. You're angrier than that, I imagine in this case because of the Prop8 debacle. That's fine, I'm angry too.

But I'm still curious about where your morality comes from. It's not entirely natural, although you do see altruism in primates and some other mammals. You must have learned it from someone. Parents, teachers, television, sunday school. I am willing to bet that a majority of atheists come from loving and secure family settings, where kindness and decency and love feel like natural principals of the universe. Why would we need a god, we know what's right and how to look after one another. The trouble is, it's not true of everybody. For many people God is that stern but loving father they never had. That's the only reason I defend the religioulous. Don't take it for granted where your morality comes from, and give a moment's thought to others less fortunate is all I'm saying.

What a lovely chat. I wish we had beer and pot and a glowing fire.




In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
You can't blame me for breathing on a wilting violet. This was a dialog, not a monologue. If Aemaeth didn't want a discussion, then he shouldn't have responded to my video in the first place. He's no victim.

I wasn't trying to chase him off the site. I was just trying to seed some doubt and engage him in some frank conversation. I'd love nothing more than for him to come back and stand up for himself. He could bring his friends too if he likes. The more the merrier.

Again, I'm going to re-iterate that there is a double standard when it comes to religion. The religious are allowed to damn people to hell and decide which humans are allowed to be married, but point out some glaring problems within a faith and all of a sudden you become Darth Vader.

Inelegantly: fuck that

I honestly find Mormonism very troubling, from it's morally disgusting inception, to it's unbelievable mythology, to its history of discrimination and misogyny, to its recent foyer into politics. I see it as a negative force in the world and would like to seed some doubt among its followers.

Can I be tolerant and severely critical at the same time?

Here are some questions that culture tells me I shouldn't ask.

-Joseph Smith had 33 wives, some of them as young as 14, some of them were others men's wives. How does this square with Mormon views on morality? How can you follow the teachings of a despicable lech and then seek to limit the rights of gay people?

-Do Mormons really believe that God waited 1800 years and then revealed himself to some dude in rural Utah, whom he instructed to sex up dozens of women and girls?

-Is it possible that this entire religion started out as a sex cult?

-Do Mormons really believe that Native Americans are actually a lost Jewish tribe?

Does tolerance require my silence on these points?

Would you have chastised me if Aemaeth was a Scientologist, or a polite Neo-Nazi?

Does tolerance have limits?

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

I hope I'm doing things this kooky when I'm his age.

"I object to the idea that people have the right to vote on everything...." (Rand)

Good point. She may have meant that the stupid majority, say kooky Christians against gay marriages, should not abuse their greater numbers against the lesser.

I don't think that's what she had in mind, but....

"I am for the separation of state and economics...just as we had the separation of state and churches....” (Rand)

Another good point, except that neither has ever really happened, ever, in mankind's history.

It has been possible to separate religion from government, but not economics; one is always a subset of the other.

Brilliant woman. Totally fucked up by the trauma of the Russian revolution. Confined herself to a fantasy world, as brilliant as Tolkien's, as spiritual as C.S. Lewis's, as curious as Lewis Carroll's....

But a far cry away from reality.

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

^I don't like that idea because it concentrates all the power with Lucky and I. We want VideoSift to be as flat as possible. We also don't want to take any powers away from people just because a small minority are abusing those powers.

I'm a nerd and an international relations major so I have some kooky ideas about mixing computers with government. I take the blame/responsibility for the community structure of VideoSift. Here's what I believe:

1. Absolute power really does eventually corrupt absolutely
2. A meritocratic democracy is the best form of government
3. Machines can work with us to help prevent absolute corruption and
facilitate a meritocratic democracy

In the past few months I've felt the creeping corruption. People pushing boundaries for attention, testing limits, crying foul - and then our increasingly frustrated, possibly misguided responses. Ban, suspend, chide, rebuke. And then cries of Hitler, Stalin, Mussoulini.

We want to make the executive branch of VideoSift as weak as possible. Admins will step in where we feel the Sift is truly threatened and being hurt - otherwise we want to put the care of this community into the hands of the people who are emotionally invested and have achieved good things on the Sift.

I hope the Sifquisition function gets used infrequently. I also hope that it's effective in those times when we need it. Calls for bans (usually through private profile messages) are not mainly about misuse of invocations. They are more frequently around people being borderline racist/hateful/homophobic/insensitve. In a lot of these cases it's very difficult to tell if that's the real intention of the accused sifter, sometimes it seems ironic, facetious or just a lame joke.

I'd rather deal with these kinds of things in the open between us all because they can be very subjective - and one admin can't make a consensus. Each time we do deal with it, we're setting a precedent, "case law" if you will on what's OK and what's not on the Sift.

Look, it's an experiment - (this whole damn site is an optimistic experiment) let's give it some time and if we find it's not working we'll try something else.

^Oh, he's an Ayn Rand fan. Well that explains a lot, now, doesn't it.

Objectivists (who are about as far from objectivity as you can get) are a kooky and delusional lot. It's a pseudo-philosophy that promotes the virtues of being selfish. According to Rand, if we are all selfish and only look out for ourselves, we will all be architects and railroad tycoons.

Hopefully imsteller is still a college student, and will grow out of this phase in a year or two. Truth be told, I spent an entire summer thinking I was Howard Rourke, but I eventually realized that living a life of selfishness and indifference is just sad and that objectivism was beyond stupid. If he's over 30 and still buys into this crap, then I'm afraid he's intellectually doomed.

Anyway, the point is, that this 'philosophy' is actually more of a cult, and you know how cult members will dig in their heals when challenged. So, argue with him all you like, but you'll only be going in circles.

This is exactly why religion needs to be separated from the state. It wouldn't surprise me if some of those in middle-America still believe in magic, voodoo and those kooky "Slimer" ghosts. You know, they caught one of them for real on tape when they were filming that Bill Murray movie...

Oh, those kooky kooky local news hosts.

Weak sauce.

Ron Paul: half-brilliant, half-kooky, half-naive.

The DJ thing makes about as much sense to me as religion. So this sift is especially kooky.

nobody is "nitpicking" about the stuttering. responding calmly under pressure is not a "nit".

i have noticed that criticism of obama automatically gets interpreted as support for mccain. why not disagree with them both? they are both politicians, politicians have a 98% suck rate.

ahhhhh but you have the two party system which means you vote for the guy you think is least shit. clever system that... kinda makes anyone with real change on their agenda look... well... kooky. kucinich anyone? nah, thought not. he's "unelectable" right? so carry on choosing between your two liars.

notice how none of them talk about changing the two party gravytrain that has kept them all in nice suits for so many years.

How's it going, Zeddediah?

>> ^ShakyJake:
Haha, this was good. I always have to laugh when I see something like this make it onto regular TV.
I once found the old "baby names" book my parents had. The two that were circled were "Jacob" and "Zeddediah". I'm glad they went with the less kooky one.

Haha, this was good. I always have to laugh when I see something like this make it onto regular TV.

I once found the old "baby names" book my parents had. The two that were circled were "Jacob" and "Zeddediah". I'm glad they went with the less kooky one.