This is so totally unimportant. I can understand why no one would comment on it...

This video and this proposal reeks of ignorance. They don't really know what World of Warcraft or Second Life is about and it is very apparent.

Second Life is unimportant in reality - it's like a giant paintbox that college professors and artists play with, but that's that.

World of Warcraft is a game with social aspects - but is still primarily a game, with quests, missions and so on, like any other game.

^ That's a good point. But, he thinks the question is unimportant, because he is well aware that the U.S. is working for a status of forces agreement with Iraq; that it is not dissimilar to Korea. He is unlikely to change his tune in this regard. He would like to see a U.S. presence there indefinitely to protect the country's interests.

That is not a view I hold. But tweaking the meaning a little to get people to somehow jump to the conclusion that he thinks the soldiers themselves are unimportant is unjustified if you are being honest. Reporters absolutely should report what the candidates say; and only what they say. But if reporters are to not allow a "highly generous after-the-fact interpretation" then they also should not allow their own commentary, interpretation or titling.

>> ^thepinky:

How is a church that encourages people to be good, that promotes strong and happy lifestyles and families, and that does an incredible amount of humanitarian work anything like Saddam Hussein's secret police?

Both are organisations with an ideology and a uniform.
The fact that followers of the ideology might be pleasant people does not support the ideology, whether it is Saddam's or Smith's or anyone else's.


... on a regular basis receive ridicule and real live persecution because of ignorance and intolerance (see my reply to dag), and the users of videosift are perpetuating that attitude toward them. It's sad.

Some people would say that insulting Christianity by claiming that Jesus visited your country and ordained a magic hat is both ignorant and intolerant. I think almost all organised religion is by definition intolerant of others. You can't tolerate justifiable attacks on the integrity of your organisation, you have to demand they stop. Why should they stop? Sure the retards going on about polygamy should update their criticism, but you're still gonna get criticised. You got a big temple and stuff. That's a legitimate target.


I didn't mean that it [the magic hat] is unimportant, I just mean that it isn't doctrinally significant enough to put in a short summary.

it undermines the validity of your organisation. it is a "dirty secret".


Mormons believe that Jesus died on Calvary, was resurrected after 3 days, and following his ascension into...heaven or whatever you want to call it, he visited Christians in the Americas.

And Smith died how? Resisting arrest with gunfire? Isn't that a bit weird for a Christian?
Now do you see my point?

Relax, I am not saying you are a bad person doing bad things. I am just saying it's highly debatable whether or not there is any foundation for your insistence on the particular strand of religion called "mormonism" ... other than you were born into it.

>> ^MINK:
there were probably nice members of saddam hussein's secret police but that doesn't legitimise saddam's ideology.
i think the thing is that all organised religions are kinda flawed and to say that one is "better" than another, or should be "excused because it's followers are nice" is really weak.
if the magic hat part of mormonism is so unimportant, why not just say you are a happy active jesus follower, instead of insisting on specifically following the guy with the magic hat? it might be a fine system to use in your community if you are brought up in that tradition, but these days we have contact with other peoples and ideas, and going around with a book that you literally pulled out of a hat is always going to be controversial.
jesus died on a cross, not in a gunfight. that IS important.


It's like you're trying to make a false analogy. How is a church that encourages people to be good, that promotes strong and happy lifestyles and families, and that does an incredible amount of humanitarian work anything like Saddam Hussein's secret police?

Who's asking to be excused? Yes, the followers are nice. If the church creates more good in the world than it does bad, if the people are happier than they would be had they not been members, why need it be excused? Yet it does on a regular basis receive ridicule and real live persecution because of ignorance and intolerance (see my reply to dag), and the users of videosift are perpetuating that attitude toward them. It's sad.

I didn't mean that it is unimportant, I just mean that it isn't doctrinally significant enough to put in a short summary. And can you hear yourself suggesting that Mormons become like other Christians? Can you really not see why that's wrong? Heck, why don't Muslims become mainstream Christians, too? Then they won't have to deal with controversy.

Mormons believe that Jesus died on Calvary, was resurrected after 3 days, and following his ascension into...heaven or whatever you want to call it, he visited Christians in the Americas. I don't really know what you meant by that.

there were probably nice members of saddam hussein's secret police but that doesn't legitimise saddam's ideology.

i think the thing is that all organised religions are kinda flawed and to say that one is "better" than another, or should be "excused because it's followers are nice" is really weak.

if the magic hat part of mormonism is so unimportant, why not just say you are a happy active jesus follower, instead of insisting on specifically following the guy with the magic hat? it might be a fine system to use in your community if you are brought up in that tradition, but these days we have contact with other peoples and ideas, and going around with a book that you literally pulled out of a hat is always going to be controversial.

jesus died on a cross, not in a gunfight. that IS important.

Ahh, yah GOTTA love politics... both sides, same sides, within sides... it's all batshit terrible.

Rather than discussing the ISSUES and the SOLUTIONS the media harps on about completely unimportant crap.

So very, very sad.

Choggie, I have done a fair deal of research into the topic of Single Payer Health care systems and I have to object to your glib and one sided presentation of the topic.

First suggesting that the distribution of health care resources is an 'ancillary issue' that we 'hem and haw over' is really selling the issue short. People live and die based on the stance we take. While you could validly argue that there are more important issues out there, that does not mean that this individual issue is unimportant.

Secondly your description of America's top notch health care only truly applies to the clinics that are available to those with enough money. Meanwhile many lower/lower middle class Americans choose not to completely mortgage their future and wind up far more ill or dead because of this decision. While America does have the best health care in the world, its limited availability has resulted in America having one of the shortest life expectancies and highest infant mortality rates in the western world.

Third, the flaws that are admittedly present in more socialized health care systems are not sufficient to completely disregard it as a possibility. People are often forced to wait and taxes would be noticeably higher. However, all Americans would be able to go to see medical professionals, even when they do not require emergency medical care.

Finally, a more socialized health care system could be beneficial to our economy. Though taxes would rise, people would not be paying the same ungodly insurance rates or hospital bills. People would feel far more financial freedom as they can now spend more of their hard earned money on themselves, without having to worry about one injury putting them in the poor house.

While I admit that their are valid objections to socialized health care/ health insurance, the hostile rejection it often receives is completely unneeded. We can discuss the topic without resorting to narrow mindedness, generalizations or petty name calling.

You're right gun-free 'zones' don't work. When you're one of few states in country that on the whole has liberal gun ownership laws and simply ludicrous gun ownership levels compared to any other developed country, you'd be naive to propose than it would be anything but marginally more difficult for criminals to smuggle legally purchased firearms in from neighbouring states, unless you enforce highly stringent cross border checks.

There are more peaceful countries with more guns per person than the USA. Mind you, they have small, homogenous populations and guns are more a part of their sport culture. No matter the country, the bad guys have guns and can get guns. Always will.

I've lived in both kinds of states. The People's Republic of Mexifornia has stringent gun control laws in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Unless carrying illegally, the citizens there are unarmed sheep. The idea there is to keep people dependent on Big Government. Individual victims are unimportant.

In right-to-carry states (close to 40 states now) crimes shift from invasion (victims at home) and carjacking to theivery when the victim isn't around, though I always enjoy reading about a 90-year-old granny with an S&W permanently recalling some deserving idiot who tried to break into her home.

In the same way, a universal ban on firearms would likely not have any immediate drastic effects on violent crime involving firearms, other factors such as living standards, unemployment levels notwithstanding. A governmental requisitioning of all registered firearms would be far more effective, such the one conducted in Australia which saw 650,000 firearms surrendered in 1997, and a 47% decrease of firearms related deaths in just four years. Again though, with an estimated 50% of US households owning guns with a significant number unregistered, and a potentially far higher average gross amount, the effects would be unlikely to be felt immediately.

My understanding is that crime went up after Australia's gun ban.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html

It only makes sense. If a guy holding a cricket bat doesn't know if I have a gun behind my back, he might not be so quick to attack. Take away that criminal's certainty that he won't be seriously injured and you only embolden him. There's simply no reason to believe that criminals will stop acquiring guns by any means necessary. Gun control punishes only the law-abiding.

Pushing the libertarian approach of the Second Ammendment is skirting around the issue in two ways. Firstly the Second Ammendment talks about the need for a well trained armed militia which is arguable at best in terms of modern necessity and the likely initial motivation for the clause.

The Supreme Court of the United States does not share the liberal view that 'The People' refers to organized militias. It is defined as an individual right.

Secondly where is this connection between the assumption that gun ownership is a supposed human right and the Second Ammendment? That's an separate argument entirely and is very debatable.

Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Firearms are merely a technological extension/expression of this right. People who believe in non-violence to the point they would not resist an attack from someone trying to kill them have the right to not resist and be killed, though most people would call such a thing "suicide by murder." But people do not have the right to hinder or remove others' right to self-defense just because they think disarmament will create "a safer environment". If there was a walled village somewhere that wanted to ban all guns, and all the people living there agreed to it, I don't see anything wrong with that. Unless they were going to be robbed.

The state's role is to provide collective security, it's not simply true that individual freedoms should be protected at any cost and to any extreme case by default, that's a circular argument. How far would you take that absolute argument exactly?

In addition to the right to bear arms--which truly is a right that should apply to every human being save criminals--I believe there are reasonable standards for self-defense that should never be infringed upon. There's no valid reason why any adult citizen of sound mind could not have a firearm to protect the lives of family and to a limited degree, property. Most Americans are unaware it's perfectly legal to own machine guns, and many hobbyists and collectors pay the extra licensing fees and do. We all know a missile launcher for home defense is as impractical as driving a dragster to work; it's not really an issue.

Hard drugs like cocaine? Biological weapons? In my view collective security includes restricting gun ownership to police and trained security personnel. Obviously your view differs but it's not logical to claim that by default without any justification as to why you draw the line exactly where you do.

I understand your point of view. Again, in countries like Japan where people are obedient rule followers, the State can get away with total gun control. However, the downside of that level of obedience is when the Emperor commands, "Go crash your plane into ship." There are certain segments of societies that can and do live without guns. But it only works if it's by choice and there are zero criminals about.

Oh and just out of interest, how likely do you really think that faced with a gun pointing at your face, you'd be able to protect yourself with a loaded and armed firearms conveniently with you at all times (which you of course know how to use) and not tucked away and unarmed in a desk drawer to ensure your 4 year old doesn't get their hands on it?

I think you've answered your own question in a roundabout way. If you think that it's impossible to defend yourself with a nearby firearm, how do YOU expect police and trained security personnel to save you? In America, there's no law that says a cop has to take a bullet for you or is required to give their life to save yours. American law loosely defines police as supposed to "protect society." That doesn't mean anythng to you and me personally. The joke is: 9-1-1 is govt.-sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

The 4-year-old and gun safety issues are aided by the same thing that allows people to move relatively safely in a world of chainsaws, cars and not smoking while pumping gasoline: education.

Regarding your Wild West scenario, most criminals are after cash or other valuables. They don't want to have extended shootouts, and even when they're nutballs like the coward at Virgina Tech, they don't want anyone else being able to shoot back. While no single student with a gun may have been able to take out that nut, the more people that might've had a gun the better the odds would've been of stopping him sooner.

In the USA, guns are used to save lives over 2 millions times a year. Most of those incidents, the gun isn't fired, merely drawn.

Even if you never own a gun, don't you owe it to yourself to learn firearm basics and safety? They are a part of this world.

For those wondering about the relevance of these posts to this sift, B. Hussein Obama is a gun-grabbing leftist. Those that don't trust a citizenry with guns should not be trusted with power.

12 hour workdays are no excuse, but your apology explains that your comments were intended to cut "straight-to-the-point". Meaning that your point was stated as you feel straight from your gut. If that's how you feel, you should probably reevaluate the importance of something as trivial as sexual preference, and even skin color for that matter. Because, let's face it, they're both equally unimportant when it comes to defining an individual. Anywho, that's your dragon to slay and now you know how we all feel about it. Apology accepted by me, but hopefully you can figure things out.

PS: Maybe you should watch this next time you feel like any thoughts you have, really do matter at all.

Second Life is way too overhyped by the media and is in all honesty quite unimportant in videogame history.

1) "videos being viewed right now" might be disposable.
As the traffic increases, it becomes irrelevant to the point of being "here's some random videos, yay" ...that some random people happen to be watching... It might be worth extending the "new sift-talk posts" panel to include all channel sift-talk posts in place of the "videos being viewed right now."

2) With everyone on broadband, we might up the default vids/page to 20 and top 15 to top 20. This can also allow the additional channel Sift-talk posts in the side-bar.

3) I wouldn't mind giving the "diamonds" the ability to * destroy a vid from the deadpool if it is obviously one of those ones that will never come back, e.g. simpsons or anything comedy central. We don't need to continually seek ways to avoid the law and their copyright permissions to keep 1 minute videos circulating on the sift "illegally." If "destroyed," they're gone from the deadpool and people can re-submit them anyway if the legal issues get sorted out in the future.

Encouraging more commenting and Sift-talk participation might make the community more vocal. For now, we have a very limited group of regular vocal posters. As much as I enjoy the "small group" mentality, it doesn't support dissension very well. I guess I'm concerned about the sift just becoming another marginal and unimportant one-sided group-think forum. If everyone thinks the same way and they all only let certain vids through, then it's not what it seems it was meant to be and it loses HALF its potential audience. It'll just be another Drudge or Moveon. Encouraging commenting by some means might incite some better 2-sided discussions.

http://www.eaglesnesthome.com/creation.htm
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

The odds that evolution is true is astronomically low and getting lower all the time. "Unregenerate men cling to their belief in evolution because of their hostility toward God. There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution. Yet millions accept it because they have been brainwashed into thinking it is true."--Dr. D. James Kennedy

I don't know about you, but I am certainly not a random mishap from the plasma pool. Remember; evolution is a THEORY - it has not been proven scientifically. My prayer is that all will look at the universe as a clear flag that God is in control and created you to love and be loved.

Don't spend too much time trying to figure out what is right here. It is so very unimportant in contrast to how you live your life.

It's a good thing this video of the WTC7 collapse includes audio. We can clearly identify the series of loud explosions that knock out the primary supports and cause the implosion... Oh, what's that you say? There were no such explosions recorded or heard by people who were there that day? Don't be so stupid. It's just because the government has created secret new silent bombs. (I believe they figured it out after watching an episode of MacGyver.)

This was clearly a controlled demolition by the government. All you people with common sense are so full of shit!!! Don't you understand that Bush wanted to invade Iraq no matter what the cost?! It's indisputable that Al Qaeda hijackers took over the planes and flew them into various places (oh, but not the Pentagon of course; that was a military missile fired from a submarine or satellite or something), but that wouldn't have been enough cause to invade another country. (We also musn't forget that those hijackers were all being trained and financially supported by Bush, of course.)

Instead of counting on the airliner attacks being enough reason to eventually wage war, the Bush administration had fantastic enough insight and just knew that unless a small, unimportant building near the Twin Towers also collapsed, we wouldn't have just cause.

So as soon as Bush took office, he had his secret engineers who work at Area 51 develop new powerful bombs based on alien technology that could be placed inside a building's support columns without anyone able to see them and then later explode without making any sound whatsoever.

Zomg, it's like so totally obvious, you dumb L4m3rz!

Berticus, point taken even if it's an extreme scenerio. I've said all I need to say on the subject and further commenting would just be repetitive. Especially since it's such an unimportant issue getting blown out of proportion. I'm not arguing against gay rights, just that I disagree with the lifestyle. I still stand by my previous assertions of morality. The "you can't convince me" comment is not for scientific proof on the root cause of homosexuality, but the morality of it. Seriously, are your base set of beliefs going to change because of a little banter on an internet discussion board? Most likely not.

Raven, mostly repressed Christian sexual attitudes come from traditions with no real Biblical basis. There's not too much about sex in the Bible other than basics like don't sleep with animals, the same gender, and staying faithful to your spouse... things like that. A whole lot of times I find Christians with ideas that have no Biblical basis, like dancing. I actually know people that think it's inappropriate to dance. I have no idea where they got that from and they don't either. You're right though. Religion is a bad topic of conversation so I'll leave it alone. I just wanted to put that out there. Not all Christians are Westboro material.

On another note, where are you getting overpopulation from? Food production today is so efficient that we can produce enough food right now to feed the entire world's population till they're content and still have tons left over. The problem is with inefficient infrastructure and tryannical governments. Hypothetically, if you took every single person on the earth today and gave them all 1 acre of land to live on, we would all fit inside the US, Brazil, and Australia leaving the rest of the world completely empty. Hell, 95% of our own country is still undeveloped. It just so happens that people flock to live in already densely populated areas. Population growth would be less of a problem if there were fewer governments maintaining power by oppressing their people, not by stopping reproduction.