Tags for this video have been changed from 'woven hand, sparrow falls, folk, altcountry, experimental, rock' to 'woven hand, sparrow falls, folk, altcountry, experimental, rock, David Eugene Edwards' - edited by schmawy

"...with somebody else's (the state's) property."
"...sign a contract with the state for the use of it's roads"
"...misusing the state's property constitutes non-contracted use"
"...[you] have not been given permission to drive over the speed limit."

Wouldn't that be "the people's" property and therefore the people's roads? If so, shouldn't we all have fair use as long as we're not hurting someone else in the process or hurting the property? You seem to sound like a Stalinist when you write like that. And given your continued reference to "State property" and that they haven't given someone "permission" is, to me, the most dangerous, unreasonable and tyrannical way of thinking.

To me, public property should be open to all free citizens without infringement and inspection from the State. "Can I see your papers, Komrad!"

"So you are not arguing for a right, you are arguing for means of expression."

No. The right to free movement is intrinsically woven within the right to free expression. Purchasing a means of movement is the responsibility of the person, and I have said that. I'm asking what right the "state" has to restrict a free person's movement (in whatever vehicle he or she chooses to purchase or pay to move)? A license is a restriction of free movement because it says you can only freely move via car if you have their permission to do so. I understand people can walk or pay for a cab, etc. My point is, what right does the State have to restrict your means of free movement? If you choose to drive a perfectly safe automobile, why does the State have to restrict that?

Your answer is because the roads are the "State's" property as if we have no right to use the property freely. I think you've shown only a biased Stalinist perspective to government holding all the rights over man, and that is dangerous in my opinion.

I tried posting it but it was a dupe unfortunately

I'm just going to get this part out of the way before I respond to the rest of your message. I watched the video in the link you sent me and I'm going to respond to it directly because my strong reaction to it requires more than would be fair to ask you to read in this message. It opens up the conversation into an entirely different direction thus I feel it should be separate.

Ok...

In your original claim about futility in the argument, you didn't mention "faith" as a prerequisite. I'm sure that you just left it out by accident. Either way, I still don't agree.

I don't agree because one can argue with oneself regarding faith and come to a new conclusion about the claims presented by the faith thus changing or removing the faith. This is why it is not futile to argue about faith. I've done it, many people have done it, and I'm sure more people will do it in the future. And if you still think it's an act of futility for two people to argue over matters of faith, what is the difference between arguing with yourself about these matters and arguing with someone else who could present the same points.

So let me as you this, why do you believe what you have faith in?


Tomorrow, I'm going to work on dissecting your video for you. I'll explain why I am tomorrow as well. I wanted to write more regarding some things that you said but it will be covered tomorrow too. That said, I'll leave on these thoughts.

I do indeed know what it feels like to love someone so intensely that it feels like you're melting into that person. I know the feeling of being woven together with that person spiritually. I know the feeling of having an ethereal link to that person that felt so strong that words couldn't describe the trampling euphoria experienced in her embrace. Yes, time seemed to stop.

Though to answer, no, I would not be insulted by any statement "It's just chemicals".

Does understanding how a rainbow works in any way take away from or cheapen the beauty of a rainbow?

In the same way, how can understanding how an emotion works chemically take away from or cheapen the beauty of an emotion.

As far as being able to replicate the emotions in a lab, we can. One chemical substance: Methylenedioxymethamphetamine: MDMA. Look it up.

The ability to comprehend one's mortality on more than just a instinctual level. We've devised religion to help ease that pain...

I think art and introspection are just a side effect of our intellect. I think art started out as just a simple past time. A way to tell stories. As we got our shit together, collectively, and didn't have to worry as much about the day-to-day because of agricultural advancements, individuals had more free time to create.

Introspection is another one of these personal past times. If you think about it, art and introspection are tightly woven together.

The gouvernment can track you with that in-woven metal strip, you know </x-files>

We're all going to be there.

Jung said that it is the moment that we should plan for all of our lives.

Pericles said something to the effect that a glorious death was preferrable to a boring life. I can't find the quote just now. It was one of his last, before sailing to battle.

“What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.” (Pericles)

Fantastic, first she says abstinence is unreasonable, then says it's still right, then says the way to make abstinence work is for teenagers who get pregnant to be vilified by the press (though I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that she probably isn't volunteering for public scorn).

But wait, during the campaign I thought Bristol Palin was a hero, and a model example of Doing The Right Thing?

Ahh, the joy of watching people try to untangle the webs they've woven themselves into.

I thought the music was awesome! What does that say about me? I guess it says many things. One of which is, "Hey, this guy likes intricately-woven patterns of obnoxious sounds!"

It makes great background music while I'm playing Tetris.

They're neither religious nor arguments, in fact they're not even supported by the evidence. Certainly none of them were woven by religion rather than human nature.

1. This is a form of the argument that accuses atheists of replacing religious belief with scientific belief. But science is driven by evidence and rationalism whereas religion is driven by revelations and dogma. Science isn't perfect, but it is the best tool we have for understanding the universe. Also, evolution is not about chance. Natural selection is the exact opposite of chance.

2. Wow. Three well trodden fallacies all wrapped up into one. This guy reads way too much Ray Comfort. To answer his primary question, Why is ther something rather than nothing? Well, we don't really know. To suppose that the universe was created by some powerful, divine being doesn't answer the question of First Cause because now you have the presence of a God to explain.

3. Morality is generated by culture. Culture is a set of baseline assumptions that people in a community take for granted. It enables us to communicate efficiently. Having a conversation where you had to define each and every term would be tedious and extremely time consuming. Morality, or the division of actions between Right and Wrong, is woven into the fabric of our culture. So, of course, religion influences morality, as does every cultural institution, but it is not the originator of morality. We create morality. And we are decidedly not Gods or divine.

4. This is more or less the same question as question 3. Morality evolves because of culture. Language allowed us to pass information and knowledge from generation to generation. Culturally speaking, a new generation does not start from scratch. It builds upon culture that has already been established. Also, his caveman example is ridiculous because it is entirely fictitious.

5. Yay! The argument from design rears its ugly, battered head! Why the fuck won't this one go away? When life first started here on Earth it was exceedingly simple. The diversity and complexity we see today is the product of 4 billion years of evolution. FOUR BILLION MOTHER FUCKING YEARS. That is a lot of years. I'm seriously. Although I give him credit for using a wood carving as an example instead of a pocket watch. I haven't heard that one before.

A 1957 cartoon short in the Merrie Melodies series, directed by Chuck Jones for Warner Bros. Cartoons. The film features Bugs Bunny being chased by Elmer Fudd through a six-minute and 11 second operatic parody of 19th century classical composer Richard Wagner's operas, particularly Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring of the Nibelung) and Tannhäuser. It is sometimes characterized as a condensed version of Wagner's Ring, and its music borrows heavily from the second opera Die Walküre, woven around the standard Bugs-Elmer conflict.
Originally released to theaters by Warner Bros. on July 6, 1957, What's Opera, Doc? features the speaking and singing voices of Mel Blanc as Bugs and Arthur Q. Bryan as Elmer (except for one word dubbed by Blanc). The short is also sometimes informally referred to as Kill the Wabbit after the line sung by Fudd to the tune of Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries," the opening passage from Act Three of Die Walküre (which is also the leitmotif of the Valkyries).
In 1994, What's Opera, Doc? was voted #1 of the 50 Greatest Cartoons of all time by 1000 members of the animation field.
wiki
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051189/

Whereas, breakbeats have been the missing link connecting the diasporic
community to its drum woven past
Whereas the quantised drum has allowed the whirling mathematicians to
calculate the ever changing distance between rock and stardom.
Whereas the velocity of the spinning vinyl, cross-faded, spun backwards, and
re-released at the same given moment of recorded history , yet at a
different moment in time's continuum has allowed history to catch up with
the present.

We do hereby declare reality unkempt by the changing standards of dialogue.
Statements, such as, "keep it real", especially when punctuating or
anticipating modes of ultra-violence inflicted psychologically or physically
or depicting an unchanging rule of events will hence forth be seen as
retro-active and not representative of the individually determined is.

Furthermore, as determined by the collective consciousness of this state of
being and the lessened distance between thought patterns and their secular
manifestations, the role of men as listening receptacles is to be increased
by a number no less than 70 percent of the current enlisted as vocal
aggressors.

Motherfuckers better realize, now is the time to self-actualize
We have found evidence that hip hops standard 85 rpm when increased by a
number as least half the rate of it's standard or decreased at ¾ of it's
speed may be a determining factor in heightening consciousness.

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the
unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Equate rhyme with reason, Sun with season

Our cyclical relationship to phenomenon has encouraged scholars to erase the
centers of periods, thus symbolizing the non-linear character of cause and
effect
Reject mediocrity!

Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which as been given
for you to understand.
The current standard is the equivalent of an adolescent restricted to the
diet of an infant.
The rapidly changing body would acquire dysfunctional and deformative
symptoms and could not properly mature on a diet of apple sauce and crushed
pears
Light years are interchangeable with years of living in darkness.
The role of darkness is not to be seen as, or equated with, Ignorance, but
with the unknown, and the mysteries of the unseen.

Thus, in the name of:
ROBESON, GOD'S SON, HURSTON, AHKENATON, HATHSHEPUT, BLACKFOOT, HELEN,
LENNON, KHALO, KALI, THE THREE MARIAS, TARA, LILITHE, LOURDE, WHITMAN,
BALDWIN, GINSBERG, KAUFMAN, LUMUMBA, GHANDI, GIBRAN, SHABAZZ,
SIDDHARTHA,
MEDUSA, GUEVARA, GUARDSIEFF, RAND, WRIGHT, BANNEKER, TUBMAN, HAMER,
HOLIDAY,
DAVIS, COLTRANE, MORRISON, JOPLIN, DUBOIS, CLARKE, SHAKESPEARE,
RACHMNINOV,
ELLINGTON, CARTER, GAYE, HATHOWAY, HENDRIX, KUTL, DICKERSON, RIPPERTON,
MARY, ISIS, THERESA, PLATH, RUMI, FELLINI, MICHAUX, NOSTRADAMUS, NEFERTITI,
LA ROCK, SHIVA, GANESHA, YEMAJA, OSHUN, OBATALA, OGUN, KENNEDY, KING,
FOUR
LITTLE GIRLS, HIROSHIMA, NAGASAKI, KELLER, BIKO, PERONE, MARLEY, COSBY,
SHAKUR, THOSE STILL AFLAMED, AND THE COUNTLESS UNNAMED

We claim the present as the pre-sent, as the hereafter.
We are unraveling our navels so that we may ingest the sun.
We are not afraid of the darkness, we trust that the moon shall guide us.
We are determining the future at this very moment.
We now know that the heart is the philosophers' stone
Our music is our alchemy
We stand as the manifested equivalent of 3 buckets of water and a hand full
of minerals, thus realizing that those very buckets turned upside down
supply the percussion factor of forever.
If you must count to keep the beat then count.
Find you mantra and awaken your subconscious.
Curve you circles counterclockwise
Use your cipher to decipher, Coded Language, man made laws.
Climb waterfalls and trees, commune with nature, snakes and bees.
Let your children name themselves and claim themselves as the new day for
today we are determined to be the channelers of these changing frequencies
into songs, paintings, writings, dance, drama, photography, carpentry,
crafts, love, and love.
We enlist every instrument: Acoustic, electronic.
Every so-called race, gender, and sexual preference.
Every per-son as beings of sound to acknowledge their responsibility to
uplift the consciousness of the entire fucking World.
Any utterance will be un-aimed, will be disclaimed - two rappers slain
Any utterance will be un-aimed, will be disclaimed - two rappers slain

Schmawy, you joke, but such things exist...

Also people do a lot of things other animals don't do. I've never known an Alpaca, murderous as they are, that has tightly woven stain resistant nylon fibers together into a large mat and used it to cover the floor of its living area so it is a more comfortable place to walk and sit.

I think its folly to judge human behavior by the behavior of other animals. Our basis of whether something is right or wrong should not be based on whether or not the mighty capibara includes it in its behaviors. In the case of milk I don't think other adult animals indulge in it because they do not have ready access to it. Adult cats love milk, heck even birds like it they just don't have the ability to get it.

All that said, the large dairy, egg and poultry farms could probably really use some reform. Not only are conditions often bad for the animals, but they're also bad for the food that comes from them.

Laura said: "I downvoted this because everyone out there is saying this is so great, but listen to it...he's not really saying anything, just soliciting an emotional reaction...I don't like being manipulated."

There is a proper place for the emotions, and not every appeal to them is manipulation. And I disagree that he isn't saying anything. He isn't giving detailed policy analysis to be sure, but it would be silly to expect that from the victory speech that inspired this song.

Instead, he gives us an insight into his view of the country and its history. He makes clear that he views hope as fundamental to both our past and future; as woven into the fabric of the American consciousness. He uses the speech to demonstrate that that's what he's planning to tap into in an effort to undo the damaging effects of the politics of fear and division. He tells us that he believes that America is an "unlikely story," and that unity and hope are all the more imperative because of that. As such, he explicitly rejects the current political paradigm of viewing the country as a collection of merely red or merely blue states. Finally, he acknowledges here for the first time in any of his major (post primary) speeches that the movement he looks to lead will encounter fierce resistance, but he believes that the country is ready to meet it, just as we were ready to meet the challenge of putting a man on the moon.

Those are some pretty vital things to know about a candidate, and they could all be gathered just from the song, which only takes a small excerpt of the speech. So with all due respect, you should probably listen a bit closer.

I haven't voiced my opinion on this matter and I probably won't, especially when QM has yet to respond, but I would like to speak in general to the issue of abusing power.

I really fear the Sift turning into a place like so many other sites (e.g., YT) where a member can abuse lots of others freely and knowingly face no consequences. I shudder to imagine a day where this is a kindergarten full of children that keep pouring sand over the heads of one another. It should be a safe haven where people come to relax and have fun, not where one should feel vulnerable and violated, always fearful of another sneak attack that will go unchecked.

If something should happen in a situation like this, I think the downvotes should be deleted and the offender warned, only to be banned if they in any way use their powers to attack someone again. (Or the offender should just be banned outright.) To do nothing is to condone it, and condoning abuse of power is like voting Dubya in for a second term to undermine the fabric with which this community has always been woven.