@Babymech , that is one brilliant analogy.

Black lives matter.

NO NO NO, all lives matter!

What? Who was saying that all lives don't matter??!!!!

I'm going to use that in the future,

Because that is it. Right there.

To restate it in a way that @newtboy might approve:

Women's lives matter.

Men's lives matter.

Feminist = women's lives matter.

Men's Right Movement = men's lives matter.

The Constitution = all lives matter. (In a perfect world.)

PS There are separatist, angry nutters in the Men's Rights Movement. Doesn't mean that their goal is wrong in concept. An example of that is parental rights. What a pendulum swing that topic has gone through over the decades. First men own the children and women have no rights. Then it was women were blindly seen as the "best" to take care of the kids and men had no rights. And after legal pushback, there are plenty of joint custody agreements out there.

Women's lives matter. Yep.

@newtboy - I suspect that the reason you haven't seen it in print that Dems who support Clinton will vote for Sanders is because you don't read anything but Sanders stuff. Dan Savage has even said in print he will support Sanders -- and yet what you repeated was the fact that he supports Hillary. You missed that he will gladly vote for Sanders. How could that be?

We all have our biases. And we all are, more or less, trapped in our own echo chambers.

What bothers me most about the attacks on HIllary is that the vast majority are bogus that were ginned up by the REPUBLICAN SMEAR MACHINE. And nobody looks that nasty beast in the eye and names it. Or when Hillary has done it, she is ridiculed for it. Instead, these lies are repeated as truth. You say you don't like lies -- how about pushing back on that crap, instead of embracing it, since it helps your candidate?

What I don't get from your position is what exactly you want to happen? Hillary is ahead on delegates and the popular vote. You want her to just concede right now? Is that what you think should happen?

I have lost track, but last I read, Sanders needed to win something like 65% of the remaining contests to win the nomination.

So do it. Go out and do it.

And I'll vote for Sanders.

To me, this is all more proof that you want the world to be different than it actually is.

And as I have said repeatedly, as much as idealists annoy the hell out of me with their purity tests and unrealistic, not of this world, points of view -- I am desperately glad these idealistic warriors exist. Because otherwise, nothing would ever change.

(I'm not happy about conservative idealists -- Tea Party purists who are constipated, me-me-and-mine ideologues. And I have to acknowledge that we need them, too. The continual pulling of the middle by the fringes -- that is indeed the way the world works. The pendulum that swings back and forth throughout human history.)

Unfortunately the democratic party also has a vested interest in keeping the two-party system, so I doubt they'll be getting rid of anything significant. The party itself has demonstrated this by its treatment of candidates like Lessig and Sanders.

The pendulum will always swing away from the governing party eventually, and that means it will always swing back to the republicans. The best you can hope for is that it would be a significantly changed republican party, as has happened in the past while (albeit in the 'wrong' direction, from my point of view).

Science - The Wrecking Ball Pendulum has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash on that post.

Speaking of which: *related=http://videosift.com/video/Science-The-Wrecking-Ball-Pendulum
*related=http://videosift.com/video/She-Failed-Science
Edit - buggrit - intended to put that last one related to the other one.

Science - The Wrecking Ball Pendulum has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

She Failed Science has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

Good point. Example case is the bowling ball pendulum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zy-zfLB4jI

@newtboy I think you are right if the spinning top would hang, ie its tip would be inverted (pointing upward, stuck to the plateau in some manner). Any movement away from center for the CG would be pulled back by gravity. No spinning required. However that is not a spinning top but a pendulum. As long as the tip is on top of the ground (pointing down) and not hanging the spinning top will be unstable and the only way to balance the top is to spin it no matter where the CG is.

Looks like a great time, but that's what killed Dan Osman, who essentially invented long line penduluming (and was one of the greatest free climbers ever).

What a monster. Both guys are so deserving. Both in their 30's!!

On a less joyous note, I take pretty serious issue with the way ANW runs the competition. Once I found out about the original Sasuke, I went back and watched every single season. Because it's awesome. But I feel like the Japanese organizers of Sasuke clearly understood that the competition was "competitors versus course", not "competitor versus competitor". In that vein, any set of competitors who complete the course should be equally rewarded.

Can you imagine dedicating your life to completing that course, succeeding (as one of only two people in the world, over nearly a decade of competition), then walking away with nothing because the other guy was an insignificant amount faster than you?

Props to Isaac for at least mentioning "share the money" in the post-interview (not included in this sift).

Another way I massively disagree with ANW is that they significantly redesigned the courses for every year of competition. Some variation is essential to testing the competitors' adaptability, but with so much new stuff each year they excluded lots of top talent due to bad luck or running order. Cynically, maybe to avoid paying the prize money. Last year was particularly bad with only two guys making it to stage 3. I feel like this year the pendulum swung back a little too far (or maybe "farther than intended") which is why they actually had two winners. That said, that new cliffhanger is ridiculous, but at least it's a variation on existing obstacles instead of something totally unique.

Lastly, let's not forget ANW's "USA versus The World". Really? That's so stereotypically American it's sick, especially for an adopted competition.

That's funny, earlier you made that the main point of your argument, now it doesn't matter (maybe because you were dead wrong in your assumption?).
You can say the 'pendulum swings back and forth' all you like, it doesn't make it true. Most religious people never 'swing' away from their religion, and most atheists never adopt religion. You're just plain wrong again on this assumption.
Sweet Zombie Jesus! Atheists have been around longer than theists. It's not a new concept by any means, Christianity is a new concept comparatively. One more terribly backwards assumption.
How can you explain your experience of no real Easter bunny, you can't do it. (EDIT:As I see it, there's more evidence of the Easter Bunny, I've seen thousands of bunnies, and every year those colored eggs appear, that's more factual evidence than I've seen of a god ;-) There's no god, so there's nothing to experience, so nothing to explain. Simple, and done!
Believing in the invisible, capricious, self centered bully in the sky is NOT common sense, it's a complete suspension of common sense.
I see far more religious people complaining constantly over their lot in life, and that society doesn't all follow their beliefs, miserable that they can't 'please god' and blaming all their problems on things beyond their control or understanding. Atheists don't do that, and are statistically happier, better adjusted, more tolerant of others, less criminal people. Which philosophy sounds better?

PS. You owe me an upvote!

It doesn't really matter how many people identify as atheists, although I only know one person in my circle who says he is one. I would consider him pretty moral, also.

As I said before, the pendulum swings one way, then the other, much like the sexuality of many in Hollywood.

Regardless, how do you explain the rise of some type of religion in every civilization? Atheism is most likely a late development although I don't have the stats on it. It's a 20th century invention, I'm sure.

When it comes to religion, my faith rests on those with experiential knowledge. There are multitudes of people who have had direct experience of God, they generally coincide, whereas how can an atheist explain his experience of 'no God'. He can't do it.

So to believe in God becomes a common sense decision.

If you don't, that's fine, it's your life, live it as you wish. Each man is his own philosopher. If you are miserable, you have a lousy philosophy.

Just like most things, belief can swing back and forth like a pendulum. But that pendulum will never swing one way (toward atheism) and stop.

Because a belief in a higher power is hard-coded into our DNA. Religion is man's attempt to interpret this. Some interpretations are more accurate than others, but 'whatever floats your boat'. There is great diversity in the creation, and great diversity in Man's interpretation of belief systems.

Atheism is also a belief. It requires a great deal of faith. Atheists are the few dissonant chords allowed in the symphony. But if you are drawn to that dissonance, you are out of tune.

The fish doesn't have to believe in the ocean. It's always there and sustains the fish. But the fish can't live outside of it.

I totally took this as someone yelling "God is great" and whipping the pendulum at NGT...

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