The point is that this is quite arguably NOT 'unjustified' and also quite arguably NOT 'violence'. The other video I linked above has (of course) been ignored. Watch it. The Sift choice above is the aftermath. What brought it on is here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM&feature=player_embedded

Hmm - not quite the innocent little rose, is she?

1. "Unjustified". The video plainly and clearly shows Ms. Kooksalot jumping right up at Paul's car window. No one knows who she is. No one knows what the heck she's trying to do. No one knows what the object in her hands might be. A bomb? A gun? When unidenified persons with unidentified objects and unknown intentions jump at political figures they get tackled and held down by security. She's lucky she didn't get tazed or pepper-sprayed or something more serious. If Ms. MoveOn.Stupid runs at political figures like that then a gentle nudge with a foot should be the least of her concerns.

2. "Violence". I've seen several different shots and angles of this so far and I'll just come out and say it. I've gotten harder 'kicks' from infants. The guy puts his foot on her upper tricep area and kind of gave her a bit of a push. Considering what she did, she got off way easy. If it was me then she'd have been in a full nelson eating asphalt until she was identified.

>> ^blankfist:

Well stop scaring them so you can capture it on video, jerks!


The sad thing is it looks like they literally mean, ANY SOUND. It looks like one of them nudged a small bell with their nose and the sound triggered both of their paralysis. ( 0:56 mark)

I can't wait for there to be a fallout from this tomorrow. If only to nudge people into studying what is happening in Iraq. The shifting in alliances has been rapid. Their going on about torture and civilian deaths is not what the US is concerned about. They can easily spin that to their population. I suspect that they are concerned about the US people realizing that there are no plans, or contingency plans for leaving 'strategic' military bases in Iraq.

Fine recipe for SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM.

Self LinK

*Ban anyone? *Ban *Ban Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink

>> ^blankfist:

An interesting article that explains how free markets would take care of the BP oil spill problem:
http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/in-a-truly-free-market-bp-would-be-toa
st


The real problem with that is that it means in order to have a free market, you also need an incorruptible court. How did things go for people hitting up Exxon for money after the Exxon-Valdez oil spill? Not well. How is that likely to go this time? Also, not well.

If you do find a way to keep courts incorruptible and just, why not put these perfect people in Congress and the White House too, and let them use their own untainted judgment on what should and should not be the role of government?>> ^blankfist:

No, I agree. A group of people would certainly pool their capital for the larger projects, if there's a demand for it. That's still not the same thing as the modern day Corporations we have today, is it? They wouldn't be able to corner a market and nudge out competition like they're allowed to do now by our government. In fact competition would surge because anytime a demand is high enough the supply will rise to meet it.
That's not naive. That's economics 101.

So corporations can only corner markets because the government allows them to do so? That seems to me like the only way to prevent that is to have a government that...doesn't allow them to do what they would naturally do, like get into rate wars or other anti-competitive practices.

What you're saying is indeed Econ 101. But Econ 101 is hopelessly naive. Hell, it only gets slightly more realistic even at the highest levels.

>> ^dag:

Pardon me - but that sounds a little naive. Sole proprietors aren't going to build oil rigs. A group of people are going to get together, pool their money and invest in big projects to make a profit - and there's your corporation.


No, I agree. A group of people would certainly pool their capital for the larger projects, if there's a demand for it. That's still not the same thing as the modern day Corporations we have today, is it? They wouldn't be able to corner a market and nudge out competition like they're allowed to do now by our government. In fact competition would surge because anytime a demand is high enough the supply will rise to meet it.

That's not naive. That's economics 101. It's the naiveté of the cult of government that emboldens bad governmental polices to restrict small businesses from appropriately competing with big businesses, therefore tipping the playing field (crony capitalism). The cult of government thinks the economy should be manipulated and controlled like it's a game of WOW. To me, that's not only naive, it's dangerous.

Now downvote this comment if reading this causes cognitive dissonance.

[redacted]

I think the last one wanted a lot more than a bear hug. *wink wink nudge nudge*

Hello. Long time lurker, first time poseur.

Just something off my poll.

Vote? Eh? Know what I mean? Eh? Eh? Nudge nudge, wink wink. Know what I mean? Nudge nudge, wink wink. Did someone say vote? Know what I mean? Know what I mean? Nudge nudge. Say no more, say no more. Poll? Eh? Wink wink. Poll? Eh? Eh? Poll anyone? Say no more. Nudge nudge, wink wink. Anyone up for a poll? Know what I mean? Nudge nudge, wink wink. Do you like pols [sic]? Know what I mean? Know what I mean? nudge nudge, wink wink. Say no more, a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.

Please forgive the blanket ad homonym attack. Okay, this post is homophonic as well.

Know what I mean? Nudge nudge, wink wink. Say no more.




I'm your huckleberry.

What the hell does the last digit of pi have to do with the -meaning- of pi? Nothing! Nada! Zip! The same is true for the number of digits. The number is exactly the same as the number of digits for 1/3, 1/9, 1/7, or a literally infinite number of other fractions.

And that's not even what he said, for crying out loud! He flat out said that pi refers to infinity. Which is absolutely fucking wrong!

Metaphor is one thing (although it -always- works better if the speaker/writer is clear that it -is- metaphor), factual falsehood is another. Basing a metaphor on a factual falsehood is one of the more stupid moves one could make, if you're actually trying to communicate. I suppose that if instead you're trying to confuse and misdirect, it's only to be expected.

Your argument could be equally applied to a claim that Jonathon apples mean traffic should stop, because they're red. It's nonsense, as in it literally makes no sense.

I know we tend to agree on most things, but mathematical illiteracy is a particular sore point with me. As is the unilateral redefinition of words by "professional" communicators, especially when those words are technical in nature, with precise and specific meanings. If a writer doesn't know the meaning of a word, that doesn't mean he gets to make up a new one. If he insists on doing so anyway, everyone else -should- feel obligated to abuse and ridicule him, not try to twist it into somehow being correct. Okay, maybe you could try a gentle nudge first, but if he continues, ridicule is the only appropriate response.

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

Glorious. *findthumb does appear to be working. Siftbot complains that it doesn't when you invoke it, but it works. It may take a little bit to update- but it does happen.

If you seen a broken thumb on your Sift travels, can you please give Siftbot a nudge with *findthumb to fix it up? Thanks.

*sticky.

Not all libertarians are completely secular *nudge nudge*. Rational Party For Liberty sounds good though! Though, I guess you could throw in secular as a condition of the rule of state, not to the people in it...perhaps Religiously free (as in free from the state control of religion) Rational Party for Liberty...but I think you can just eliminate that all by using rational in the word, it precludes both faith and personal morality.... so ya, Rational Party For Liberty gets my vote!

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
To think that something which started from the End the Fed rallies has morphed into something so stupid.

I'm ashamed to call myself a Libertarian if there are millions of these people who watched Fox news and decided that they were Libertarians.

How many of them now about John Stuart Mill, John Locke, or that most of the old white people wanted freedom for themselves from the British Empire, not for their slaves.

These people have been drinking too much of the Faux news water, I think they are very mad.

I true Libertarian would know that having a corporation behind your movement means you are no longer a Libertarian, you are a Plutocrat.

Lets start by making a new party, the Secular Humanist Rational Party For Liberty (Liberty for all, not just who you choose), where you have to think about things before you spout stupid shit.

All that below being said im not opposed to whoring out my points for some video love in return *nudge
http://www.videosift.com/video/Drew-Brees-Proves-He-s-More-Accurate-than-an-Olympic-Archer

>> ^ReverendTed:
I want to upvote this, because it's a topic I'm very interested in and it's a well-presented argument, but I disagree with some of his conclusions.
He challenges dualists for incorrectly equating soul=consciousness=mind, saying that terminology is very important, but at ~7:30 he equates personality with consciousness, which I don't think is a given. This is possibly because he's challenging a particular subset of dualism.
Another terminology problem is that the term "awareness" is never mentioned, presumably equated with consciousness, another non-given.
One argument that he deconstructs is the "cells are replaced so we're not even the same body" argument. Surprisingly, he doesn't mention that brain cells have traditionally been held NOT to do so, though this may have been an abandoned argument in light of recent studies that suggest some regrowth\repair may be possible. (In case my wording was confusing, this is an argument that would support his position.)
The problem with his argument is that consciousness (or at least awareness) IS non-physical, at least given our existing model. Our model of the physical universe does not account for awareness.
It DOES account for behavior. The body (including the brain) is a machine, albeit an organic one, and machines behave physically. Awareness, though, is a hole in the model. That doesn't prove dualism, but it allows for it until we're able to plug that hole.
My personal philosophy is more of a stopgap - acknowledged to possibly be incomplete or incorrect, but consistent with what's "known".
I have no problem accepting the physical model of the universe - evolution, etc. And I have no problem accepting that my body would function just fine without "me", right down to a "personality". The sensory organs feed electrical impulses up through the thalamus into the sensory cortexes, out into the prefrontal cortex and back to the motor cortex. (Oversimplified - it's all intertwined.) All the while making the synapses necessary for associations to be imprinted. I can believe that these "behaviors" were selected through evolution, right down to the development of language and abstract "thought".
Structures that tend to reproduce themselves will tend to reproduce themselves. Structures that are more effective at reproducing themselves will do so more effectively.
But it's just a structure. An amalgamation of individual cells each doing exactly what it's expected to do as an individual cell. There's no point in the process at which awareness is accounted for.
What I believe does take some elements from the Christian religion of my upbringing, which should come as no surprise. Christians are told that we leave our bodies, the vessels, behind when we leave this earth and proceed "into Heaven" to be "one with God." I believe that means everything about this earth is left behind. Not only the physical body and the physical brain, but everything contained in it, which constitutes our accumulated earthly experience - memories, personality. Why? Specifically for those reasons stated above: personality is a functional concept, alterable by physical and chemical changes. The question remains - if memory and personality are lost, what remains? What, indeed.
That said, I do believe there is something separate from the physical existence of the body (and brain) that accounts for awareness. I believe it to be, I guess I'll say an "element" of awareness. It's been suggested that the areas of the brain responsible for "consciousness" are sensory organs as much as the eyes or ears - because of their unique structure able to detect this outside influence.
The problem there, obviously, is that implies a physical influence by what's already been defined as a non-physical object.
I've separated that comment out into its own paragraph because if you really want to discredit dualism, that's all you need to say.
The counter-arguments tend to deal with current physical unknowns, shenanigans in the realm of quantum physics. That "consciousness" or "awareness" exerts its influence on the electrical behavior of the cells in the prefrontal cortex through quantum "nudges". That argument utilizes another hole in the existing deterministic physical model of the universe.
It's also been suggested that consciousness is all post-hoc. That everything we experience has already happened, even if it's fractions of the second later. That we "feel" like we've made decisions but really we're just experiencing the machinations of the brain's processes after the fact. This works pretty well for dualism, because then you no longer have to account for influence on the process. (However, it blows a hole through the theories of most dualists, who are arguing for a soul and the free will that accompanies it.)
Essentially, in this model of dualism, awareness simply detects what the brain is doing, possibly in a specific area of the brain (most likely the prefrontal cortex) - piecing it together into a coherent narrative simply for the purposes of experiencing it. When the brain is damaged, or its behavior altered, awareness is still simply detecting what the brain is doing. This accounts for alterations in personality due to disease, etc. It is however, purely academic, because if it has no influence, then who cares? Only the curious.
There's an island in the middle of the East river - North Brother Island. I've never been there, and I'll never go there. Few people ever will. It has no influence on me, but I'm curious about it because I find it fascinating. It's so far removed from my typical experience - and that's what makes it compelling.
Ok, I've typed too much already and I realize I never really specified what my viewpoint was.
My viewpoint is probably best described as agnostic - I know there are aspects of this discussion that are currently unknowable, so I ascribe to several options that seem to be equally believable.
I guess it's the "prefrontal cortex as awareness-sensory organ" with or without "quantum influence on output by awareness", combined with "awareness is distinct from personality and memory", which allows for some interesting (if not necessarily deep) philosophical musings on what happens to that elemental awareness once it's separated from the earthly body.


Quantum physics = if the numbers don't add up invent your own reasoning, e.g., dark matter or alternative universes while claiming nothing exists that I can not prove. The lack of proof does not equal the lack of existence. Critical thinking seems to be lacking.

Wrecking ball? That's a nudging ball.