^dghandi

I think I see what your talking about now. here is the revised logic:

1. A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in social interaction.
2. living beings are living beings
3. living beings are alive, or have life
4. life persists only with self-sustained, self-generated action
5. social interaction is only possible if living beings exist
6. living beings only exist if they have the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action
7. social interaction is only possible if living beings have the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action
8. the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action, in a social context, is what I term "the right to life"
9. the only way to violate a freedom of action is through physical force (compulsion, coercion)
10. the right to life is the freedom to persist in self-sustained, self-generated action in the absence of physical force (compulsion, coercion)

previously I was skipping from 4 to 8, and that was definitely invalid. thanks for catching that! I believe this clears up #2 and #3 on your list. I also went ahead and changed #1 as you recommended.

as far as #4, you are correct that I need to define property rights in order to jump from the right to life to the right to trade. I will add that in there

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sex isn't something that is happening in school

Translation: I NEVER HAD SEX IN SCHOOL! ...or since


Blah, way to be a jerk and not stay on topic.

I shall be a little more clear with what I am saying as I think my message got lost in peoples spin on doing the hibbidy dibidy all the live long day.

Books, teachers, science labs, paper, pens, are part of the education process provided by the state. Having sex in the middle of the class is not. While sex education is a must, having sex in school is not on the curiculum as far as the state should be involved in. IE, condoms are not a pen, a book or any other tool used in forging the mind.

Like some have pointed out (tackfully unlike the nice person above), sex is part of the natural social evolution of a person. Right, but that isn't the focus of the classroom. Schools are for classes and expanding your mind, that is what the state is supposed to be providing. I have problem no problem with my taxes going to books and pens and things that are developing the young minds of tomorrow. But I have a problem with my tax dollars sponcering another childs sex life and/or other social, non-education things (recreational sex is not educational sex . I would be just as against schools providing some sort of free music program on the government dime on the logic that music is needed for a well devolped social mind.

I also don't preach ignorance or being unprepaired, I am just against paying for it on the government ticket. Schools shouldn't be in the business of providing anything but education. If someone can show me how a condom is an education device, besides maybe just learning how to put one on, then I will be convinced, otherwise, it is the school system trying to be more than it is roled to be. This isn't a night club, this is a school. Sex may happen on campus, that is not what I was saying at all, what I am saying is that is the subject of social interaction and not the domain of the school to provide materials for out of our tax budget. Once again, if someone can show how a condom is like a pen (hahaha don't go there), then I'll be more adpt to listen, but so far it seems like "ehh why not" kinda arguments? Perhaps I misunderstood yall as much as yall did me

And if they are just giving them away, then it should be avalible for all citizens everywhere, not just kids...and I would be against funding my fellow americans sex needs in the same way I am against this

Thanks everyone for your respectful comments...minus one


edit: And did no one else think that the video was totally biased? The lady arguing for the side of schools not providing for that thing had some very unconvincing speaking methodology

"You want to troll me? Heh. Good luck. Perhaps you haven't heard, but I have an IQ of around 190 (I took some online tests and averaged the score). You? You're nothing but a baka little gaijin. Feh. You are lucky that my Dragonball Goku training has given me the maturity to not unsheathe my bat'leth and send your dishonored spirit to Gre'Thor.

Perhaps you're wondering why I'm even wasting my breath on a weakling such as yourself; a weakling not worthy of being run through with my hatori hanzo steel. The answer is simple: as a proud Aspie, endowed with mental capabilities far beyond your own, I represent the next stage of human evolution. It is my sworn duty to cleanse your kind from the internet and to make it a safe haven for those who find beauty in Animu and peace in Star Trek dick girl fan fiction.

So take heed, trolls: wherever there is a fellow aspie being flamed for their love of Naruto, I'll be there. Wherever a Ron Paul supporter is being harassed, I'll be there. Wherever there are more then 3 people having actual social interaction outside of their mother's basement, I'll likely be somewhere else."

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/awfulvision/racist-hillbilly-furry.php?page=7

I think some of this comes down to opinion rather than fact. I don't believe it is as damaging as some would say, but, I would not like my kids playing games like this until they are older - videos games, with a limit on how long they sspend, is one thing, I think I prefer the idea of my kids, reading, and using their imaginations.

"How did you spend your childhood?"
"I shot imaginary people"

The thing is there is no social interaction here, and i would want him learning the language at 5 other people will certainly be using!

Thats just me, in time yes, at 5 years old - no way

But, thats not because I think it will damage him to the extent others believw, in the end CS is Cops and Robbers (I still dont think for kids though, too bloody)

The problem is parents who worry so much about aductions, pollution, drugs, the kids falling out of trees, that they don't let them out of the house, and so, TV and computer games become a lazy tool of parenting. (I am not saying if you let your kid watch TV or play computer games you are automatically bad and/or lazy)

Kids should play with other kids. Computer games yes, but not frequently. And check the content, CS I dont think is suitable for a five year old!

The funny thing is, some parents don't think twice about their kid playing that violent bloody shooter, but if the game contains any reference, no matter how slight to sex, then suddenly they give a shit. Now thats twisted logic.

you know, I feel the need to say something to those people who are leaving "because of this or that"... And those who have a problem with it.

I'll try to keep it short.

I believe that these days, the internet has become integral in the lives of a lot of people in the "modern world". Why? Because we are either so f-ing busy, so isolated, or so socially intimidated by the crazy world out there that we don't get as much human interaction as we historically have as people.

The internet allows us to fulfill a basic social need, but in a unique way. How so? It's on our own time. It's not like being in a group of people working and living together where anyone might approach you at any time in any given "mood" you might be in, from which base you would then interact with them. It is a choice, which makes the social interaction not only more concentrated, but makes it more important.

I hope this makes sense here.

Speaking personally, I noticed a higher ratio of intelligent to mundane people here on Videosift, so I stuck around. I could elaborate, but the bottom line is that I live a rather isolated life and I needed to know where I "fit in" socially these days, and whether I would be accepted should I represent myself in cyber space (which I believe, if a person is transparent, is a good representation of their core being). I put myself out there in my tastes in videos, comments, and votes within the relatively safe environment that is the sift...and I found out a good deal about myself. It transformed me in a good way. Very simple.

Videosift has been a nice tool for me socially.

It is probably the same for anyone here, whether they realize it or not. As such, people don’t need tools forever. A job gets done, or one moves on. For those reasons, I don’t think VideoSift has too many people (we’re all different, thank goodness), too many cat videos, or too many serious videos. I think things here, just as they do in the universe itself, tend to balance out naturally and ebb and flow. I appreciate diversity and I appreciate choice. I appreciate all the people who bring those things to me. So if someone wants to go, let them go. Let them return if they need it. Let them not. Let them express gratitude for the experience, or let them dissappear…

“Live and let die”, my friends.

Peace.

Idiot = stupid person (just so we're clear), and my point was that I would rather have a leader that didn't believe in blatant falsehoods, which can be, as close as possible, proved.

You have to think your examples through - if you are a doctor and still believe in allah/god whoever, then the person is kidding himself, because his (or her) work directly contradicts his beliefs. If religion was kept completely separate from questions of science and reason (such as medicine, education) then I would have no trouble with it - the bad thing about it is that religion always encroaches on these and other fields. This is why religion in general is bad for the general populous. If it were a completely personal thing, I would have no apparent problem with it, but it's usually not.

I'm not sure there is such a thing has hard-wired beliefs, because I think all beliefs can be challenged. But I understand what you're getting at with that.

"I understand it's the truth and all, but if you really want to be a successful person, not just someone who lurks 24/7 on internet discussion boards, you must know when to use this truth and when not to."
You keep coming back to this and it is really not important in this context and is a thinly veiled attack on me. We're not discussing the complexities of social interaction; I know that I shouldn't confront religious people carrying the God Delusion like some sort of Atheist preacher, because that would be foolish and accomplish nothing. Gradual steps is the way to go, and that's why someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Daniel Dennett take a more "political" way of introducing atheism to religious people.

Berticus got my vote, because he is right. chilaxe covers the evolutionary reasons for emotions and there are biological and chemical explanations too. Just because something is hard to explain, doesn't mean that it can't be explained.

Wow, I didn't know that comment blocking was going to lead to Communism, choggie. This is a little surprising coming from a guy who says that opinions are like you-know-what.

Look, I don't plan on blocking anyone's comments, but if someone else wants to block them then who gives a rat's ass? People filter shit all the time in their lives anyway. Many choose not to watch FOX News because it sucks. Some people will only read the New York Post and refuse to even look at the New York Times. Some people refuse to read a single word of Ann Coulter's, and others can't stand to even hear the sound of Keith Olbermann's voice. What are you going to do, force everyone to watch and read everything so that they know all 879,000 sides of every story?

Now you could argue that the world is in such bad shape these days partly because people are always selectively filtering information. However I don't see human behavior having changed so drastically over the millennia to say that people only started selectively filtering information just recently. People have ALWAYS done it. It ain't the end of the world.

Besides, those who filter comments will probably notice that some threads won't make sense because they chose to filter out comments. Oh well, that's what they chose to do, so those are the consequences they'll have to accept.

If in a few days time we all start calling each other "comrade" and start posting old Soviet propaganda videos, then we'll know choggie was right after all. However I'm still banking on comment filtering not even registering a blip on the social-interaction radar here. And I watch the radar, people. Trust me.

>> ^Farhad2000:
I don't think there is really a culture within the Sift. Culture implies a higher social interaction then currently exists, we have about as much culture as a art house movie theater with a bunch of regulars.

I disagree, human interaction is what sparks culture, and to say there is no human interaction on the Sift is refuted by the thousands of comments and conversations that have and will continue to take place. Even art house theaters have cultures that can be built around them. The internet simply connects more people then meat-space will.

I don't think there is really a culture within the Sift. Culture implies a higher social interaction then currently exists, we have about as much culture as a art house movie theater with a bunch of regulars.

There are a number of blog directories for bloggers. I belong to two. I spend a lot more time on one, BlogCatalog. It has a lot of social interaction on the site itself. There is "friending." But if you like a blog and want to go back you click on "join neighborhood."

http://www.blogcatalog.com/

There is a lively area for discussions, blog and non-blog topics. Discussions can be on any topic - mostly. Religious discussions are now limited to the group area. There's a stricter code now. Any blogger can start a group.

http://www.blogcatalog.com/discuss

http://www.blogcatalog.com/groups

If you don't want to sign up with a blog, you have the option of being a guest.

http://www.blogcatalog.com/signup/

Well I don't think there is anything wrong with seeing probies. Though it would be nice to have a filter. Most of us here stick around for the "social interaction" and very few probies offer that. They might eventually, but right now most of us just care about the people that are her and contribute, so it might be nice if the list was organized by star level, (not user rank) from top to bottom. So the 500's, then 250', the our gold 100, then gold etc. And then maybe cap it at say, 50 users? because after 25 (or 40 on a busy day) the rest would be probies anyway.

SO yeah, no filter, just sort by star level, and cap at 50 names tops.

Talk out your arse much cobalt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis

[edit] Toxicity
According to the Merck Index,[2] the LD50 (dosage lethal to 50% of rats tested) of Δ9-THC by inhalation is 42 mg/kg of body weight. That is the equivalent of a man weighing 75 kg (165 lb) inhaling the THC found in 21 grams of extremely high-potency (15% THC) marijuana all in one sitting, assuming no THC is lost through smoke loss or absorption by the lungs. For oral consumption, the LD50 for male rats is 1270 mg/kg, and 730 mg/kg for females—equivalent to the THC in about a pound of 15% THC marijuana.[3] The ratio of cannabis material required to saturate cannabinoid receptors to the amount required for a fatal overdose is 1:40,000.[4] There have been no reported deaths or permanent injuries sustained as a result of a marijuana overdose. It is practically impossible to overdose on marijuana, as the user would certainly either fall asleep or otherwise become incapacitated from the effects of the drug before being able to consume enough THC to be mortally toxic. According to a United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is less dangerous than tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction.[5]





[edit] Confounding combination
The most obvious confounding factor in cannabis research is the prevalent usage of other recreational drugs, including alcohol and tobacco.[6] One paper claims marijuana use can increase risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. [7] Such complications demonstrate the need for studies on cannabis that have stronger controls, and investigations into the symptoms of cannabis use that may also be caused by tobacco. Some people question whether the agencies that do the research try to make an honest effort to present an accurate, unbiased summary of the evidence, or whether they "cherry-pick" their data, and others caution that the raw data, and not the final conclusions, are what should be examined.[8]

However, contrasting studies have linked the smoking of cannabis to lung cancer and the growth of cancerous tumors.[9][10][11][12] A 2002 report by the British Lung Foundation estimated that three to four cannabis cigarettes a day were associated with the same amount of damage to the lungs as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.[13] Some of these finding may be attributed to the well-known custom that many British citizens often mix tobacco with marijuana. It should also be noted that a recent study conducted at a lab in UCLA has found no link between marijuana usage and lung cancer.[citation needed]

Cannabis also has a synergistic toxic effect with the food additive Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and possibly the related compound butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). The study concluded, "Exposure to marijuana smoke in conjunction with BHA, a common food additive, may promote deleterious health effects in the lung." BHA & BHT are man-made fat preservatives, and are found in many packaged foods including: plastics in boxed Cereal, Jello, Slim Jims, and more. [14]


[edit] Memory
Cannabis is known to act on the hippocampus (an area of the brain associated with memory and learning), and impair short term memory and attention for the duration of its effects and in some cases for the next day[15]. In the long term, some studies point to enhancement of particular types of memory.[16] Cannabis was found to be neuroprotective against excitotoxicity and is therefore beneficial for the prevention of progressive degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease.[17] A 1998 report commissioned in France by Health Secretary of State Bernard Condevaux and directed by Dr. Pierre-Bernard Roques determined that, "former results suggesting anatomic changes in the brain of chronic cannabis users, measured by tomography, were not confirmed by the accurate modern neuro-imaging techniques," (like MRI). "Moreover, morphological impairment of the hippocampus [which plays a part in memory and navigation] of rat after administration of very high doses of THC (Langfield et al., 1988) was not shown (Slikker et al., 1992)" (translated). He concluded that cannabis does not have any neurotoxicity as defined in the report, unlike alcohol and cocaine.[18][19][20]


[edit] Adulterated cannabis
Contaminants may be found in hashish when consumed from soap bar-type sources[21]. The dried flowers of the plant may be contaminated by the plant taking up heavy metals and other toxins from its growing environment[22]. Recently, there have been reports of herbal cannabis being adulterated with minute (silica [usually glass or sand], or sugar} crystals in the UK and Ireland. These crystals resemble THC in appearance, yet are much heavier, and so serve again to increase the weight, and hence street value of the cannabis[23].


[edit] Pregnancy
Studies have found that children of marijuana-smoking mothers more frequently suffer from permanent cognitive deficits, concentration disorders, hyperactivity, and impaired social interactions than non-exposed children of the same age and social background.[24][25] A recent study with participation of scientists from Europe and the United States, have now identified that endogenous cannabinoids, molecules naturally produced by our brains and functionally similar to THC from cannabis, play unexpectedly significant roles in establishing how certain nerve cells connect to each other. The formation of connections among nerve cells occurs during a relatively short period in the fetal brain. The study tries to give a closer understanding of if and when cannabis damages the fetal brain[26][27].[28]

Other studies on Jamaica have suggested that cannabis use by expectant mothers does not appear to cause birth defects or developmental delays in their newborn children.[29][30] In a study in 1994 of Twenty-four Jamaican neonates exposed to marijuana prenatally and 20 non exposed neonates comparisons were made at 3 days and 1 month old, using the Brazelton Neonatal Assessment Scale, including supplementary items to capture possible subtle effects. Results showed there were no significant differences between exposed and nonexposed neonates on day 3. At 1 month, the exposed neonates showed better physiological stability and required less examiner facilitation to reach organized states. The neonates of heavy-marijuana-using mothers had better scores on autonomic stability, quality of alertness, irritability, and self-regulation and were judged to be more rewarding for caregivers. This work was supported by the March of Dimes Foundation.[31]


[edit] Cancer
On 23 May 2006, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles announced that the use of cannabis does not appear to increase the risk of developing lung cancer, or increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus.[32]The study involved 2252 participants, with some of the most chronic marijuana smokers having smoked over 22,000 marijuana cigarettes.[32][33][34][35] The finding of Donald Tashkin, M.D., and his team of researchers in 2006 refines their earlier studies published in a Dec. 17th 2000 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarker and Prevention.[12] Many opponents of marijuana incorrectly cite the original finding of UCLA Medical Center from 2000 as "proof" that marijuana leaves the users at higher risk for cancer of the lung, and cancerous tumors,[9] even though the researchers at the UCLA Medical Center have revised their finding with a more in-depth study on the effects of the use of marijuana. This seemed to contradict assumptions made after some studies, like those from Dale Geirringer et al., which found that 118 carcinogens were produced when marijuana underwent combustion, and two carcinogens {2-Methyl-2, 4(2H-1-benzopyran-5-ol) & 5-[Acetyl benz[e]azulene-3,8-dione} formed when marijuana underwent vaporization with the Volcano Vaporizer.[36] To help explain this seemingly chemical proof of carcinogenity inherent in the process of combustion, Tashkin noted that "one possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."[32]

what??? no sex in the champagne room?? awwww.....

anyway, I'd also recommend getting an avatar and commenting regularly, people remember active members, and tend to sometimes give an upvote here and there based on that alone... the Sift, is after all, just as much about social interaction as it is about the videos... if people like you as a member, they will be more likely to watch the stuff you post.

Could have Asberger's but doesn't seem like it. Probably a combination of nerves and lack of social interaction.

Baqueta, you're correct, the meaning I was trying to convey was that he could fit into conversations and social interactions with very little hints that he was having any difficulty. This is in huge contrast with other savants, who require constant attention and can't survive without other people constantly looking out for them and providing care for them. That distinction alone is enormous.