1. So you are suggesting people who live on 40p a day would give two squirty shits about a smartphone? That is a result of global economic issues of which one person smashing a phone (they presumably own) is negligible to the point of complete irrelevance. Non sequitur, if this is really a concern to you then you need to go after the corruptions and inequalities in our very financial system. Handing down a phone (which is likely near the end of its useful life anyway) is not going to change anything of significance here.

2. I'm suggesting you are making an entirely subjective value judgement about the pleasure and practical use one could derive from the same investment of money/material. Lets not forget he generated around $7000 of personal income from a £50-100 investment. But more than that, perhaps to some people the pleasure and entertainment of smashing that phone was comparable to other activities that might cost the same (e.g. a night of drinking or a weekend away could easily exceed the cost of that handset). Are you suggesting spending £50-100 on leisure activities etc. is morally reprehensible? Let's not forget "smartphones" don't do anything essential for most people, they are luxury items. If you have a problem with 1st world culture that's absolutely fine (laudible even) but you can't be singling out this guy for making a very successful comedy skit when there are people everywhere who's lifestyles could be politely described as "a decadent waste of atoms".

3. Absolutely nothing is stopping that smashed phone from being recycled, many shops would give you a £50-100 trade in on a new handset even in that state as they are typically just melted down anyway (and your new shiny phone contract is worth more to them than caring about the state of your bag of broken phone bits).

Besides as a matter of pedantry my point clearly stands, doing NOTHING in a drawer is clearly inferior to generating $7000, and providing 2mins of hillarity!?!?!?!? (the comparison was between hammer and drawer not drawer and charity) What you did there was called a "straw man" (i.e. twist my word's to make a different argument that helps make your own point)

4. The phone is old and they are not built to last (again feel free to rant on our disposable culture but leave this guy out of it) as @Payback pointed out it's probably knackered anyway.


Somewhere in your argument is some righteous and commendable rage about the inequalities of the global market but you're focusing it in the wrong direction here. Be angry at the CEO and shareholders of Samsung who profit from human death and suffering in the Coltan mines, the Corrupt banks that hold a fake debt over the poor populations of the world or the Complicit governments that support them. Or maybe go after the Ideologues and philosophers that conceived and spread the culture of consumer and corporate greed driven economics.


Basically anything but rage at this guy for making a IMHO pretty funny video on a budget that utterly pales into insignificance compared to just about anything else.



Could he have handed it down? Sure. Could he have traded it for a crate of jack Daniels, a half ounce of weed, an animatronic chicken alarm clock, a present for his wife etc. etc. etc.?

Your argument taken to its logical conclusion would condemn anyone that spends money or resources on anything other than practical necessities or charity. I'm not saying that's what you meant, but that's what your argument as stated invites.

right. and what tries to stop corporations...or anything for that matter from encroaching on our civil liberties too much? Gov't.

What stops gov't from doing the same? People. People have a pretty good track record of stopping gov't that goes too far armed or not. Are people generally slow to react? sure...but they do eventually react to injustices. If gov't really did not rule by the consent of the governed, there would be heaps more unrest, There would be actual revolts happening on a semi frequent basis instead of just people threatening to revolt/secede for the sake of drama.

The problem is, we have a non-insignificant number of people who seem to honestly think corps should run everything, or at the very least, there should be little to no regulation. Like I said, right now, it's chaotic because we have far too many people who all want different things. Over time, we're going to see what works and what doesn't and things will generally settle down. bad ideas do eventually get thrown out and good ideas get implemented instead. Part of the problem is that we are in the middle of big technological changes that radically change how we live compared to even just 100 years ago. Again...chaos ensues when new things come up and it just takes time for people to figure it out, adapt, and accept change.

Honestly though, no one has yet to successfully explain how society without gov't...or amoral corporations works. who distinguishes between the amoral corps and the good ones? are there good corps in a non-statist view? if there are...then don't there have to be good gov'ts out there too? Or are we back to the viewpoint of all gov'ts are bad...but some corps are good...I don't see how you can objectively make that distinction. How do you prevent stuff from just devolving into "might makes right" no one seems to be able to answer that one. I think the human race as a whole has collectively decided that rule by force is not preferred. There are just too many people that would take advantage of and screw over other people. or are you honestly advocating a kill or be killed situation here? Again, I think people have decided as a whole that they don't want that.

There's just too much subjective viewpoints instead of objective ones.

I'm sorry, but you've got one heck of an uphill battle trying to convince people that gov't is inherently bad. Sure you've got a lot of loudmouths making a lot of noise about how they think gov't is corrupt, but that's a far cry from actually abandoning gov't. Lots of people bitch about gov't, but don't actually see a lot of people escaping it. We see it every election cycle "if so and so wins, I'm leaving the country" yet they never do.

regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on, for all the bluster and rhetoric most people would rather have gov't run by the party they don't like than have no gov't at all.

Look MilkmanDan, it was not the intention to offend you in particular, we merely leapt like a robot at an opportunity to snub a nose at rules-of-engagement relative to rules in-general and some of the more didactic pet-peeves some but not all have with regards to what we personally regard as insignificant, but that some folks seem to get bent-sideways about and begin these tiresome pedantic, didactic dull-ass comment threads.

Who cares if it's tagged incorrectly, who cares if it's marked long when it's really short? Who cares obviously some folks do and it bothers the shit outta them. There is no 'why', simply the questions of how what, when and who had a part in creating these inconsequential concerns in some people that it matters at all?

That you wanted to down-vote a comment suggests perhaps someone thought someone else was crude, mean, rude, or too direct or forward in their protest. We can live with that, as well as the supercilious reasoning for your not voting this video up, in our LTHO.

At the end of the day, you got yer cute kitty dragging someone's be-bootied -with-shoe-cover foot being dragged up close-in to a mischievous, playful cat's clawing with head-banging glee, and it's AS cute, as that slammin' chick's back-side in the screen-shot, unless you are from some other planet where rippin' asses don't stir your loins a bit, be you male or female, gay, straight or otherwise.

Glad you dug the misdirection as much as myself an we thank you for your sincere feedback.

Personally, I vote shit up based on the fact that the original submitter enjoyed the video enough to embed it, and at the end of the day it makes folks happy about contributing to the site and therefore the entire sift community benefits.

What really IS an affirmative vote anyway, but a gesture of goodwill and kindness directed outward from the wealth of consideration one has for oneself?

Do unto others, then run away as fast as you can...to paraphrase the rule.

Oh and the ass-wiping analogy was meant for all the OCD retentive types, the kind of people where everything has to be just-so or their fucking heads will explode....perhaps I should check a mirror??

Yeah, I've heard this analogy about how we might be insignificant compared to god/aliens/whatever, and it is complete and utter crap.

A piece of clay cannot reason. It has no concept of self, it has not figured out even the most basic mathematical or physical principles, and we have no way of communicating with it.

Humans have achieved all those things. As Eddie Izzard said "When you [Americans] landed on the moon, that was the point when God should have come up and said hello. Because if you invent some creatures and you put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, then you fucking turn up and say, ‘Well done.’ It’s just a polite thing to do."

I'm willing to admit that there's a possibility we are just infants in our understanding of the universe. In fact, I hope that is the case, although I fear we've actually covered a lot of the basics and there may not be anything truly life-changing left to discover (i.e. it's almost certain we will never find a "warp drive").

Either way, a superior being should be able to communicate with us in a meaningful manner. Even if it is like talking to a particularly stupid child for them, *we* still manage it. We communicate with beings of lesser intelligence all the time (small children, animals, republicans).

If we are so far below god that it is unable to make us understand him, then that's his failing, not ours.

Just like the 3/5ths compromise and voter literacy tests affected everyone equally eh?

Your admission that this law has nothing to do with combating the already insignificant and inconsequential voter fraud...


...is accepted.

ahh yes, solving problems by raising voice.

I agree the core problem is money in politics. but the main issue behind that is that ultimately not enough people see that as the main problem, Lets get real here, a non-insignificant number of our nation think our president is a kenyan muslim.

deal with that problem then maybe you can convince people that private money should be removed from politics. but good luck, it's been a problem since the beginning of all government everywhere. but hey, I'm sure your rant made a big dent in the problem. and I'm sure the president making a speech will really do a lot too

It *isdupe per Posting Guidelines point 5:

Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content.

My understanding is that he's a bit off on at least some of his biology. When it comes to the ear, I believe he's referring to otoacoustic emissions.. However, if you note from the abstract I linked, it doesn't quite work that way. Yes, homosexual or bisexual females tend to have patterns of otoacoustic emissions with more masculine characteristics, however the same is not true for homosexual or bisexual males. While the results are insignificant, I'm told that the trend is in the opposite direction (that is, homosexual males have slightly "hyper masculinized" cochlea). These changes are often sloppily attributed to "genetic" differences. However, many theories suggest that it may have something to do with testosterone exposure in utero or during early development (though genetic mechanisms are possible in many circumstances).

With regard to the voice box, I dunno. I stick to sensory systems.

I'm so torn here. On one hand, I think she deserves all the hate she gets. It's objectively a bad song and the shithead mom just paid her no-talent daughter into fake fame. But at the same time, The death threats are obviously crossing a line and so is the supposed bullying.

It swings both ways. On one hand, I don't think I will ever understand the "quest for fame" that some people strive for. Sure virtually everyone wants to be known and have the respect of their peers. I just can't contemplate being so craving for attention to put myself through something like that. So part of me wants to blame her and her mom for their low sense of self-worth that they have to crave that sort of fame.

But on the other hand. I blame society in general. regardless of whether you like the song or hate her guts, a lot of people put a non-insignificant amount of time and effort into liking or hating her. Why are we so bored that we're willing to like an objectively bad song or spend hours on youtube making hateful comments.

Then of course there's the whole money aspect of things. If all they cared about was getting paid...well obviously the mother's scheme worked. She's set up pretty good and all she had to do was make her daughter a national spectacle.

Is it worth it? Should it be worth it?

I think only two things are certain for me. 1. The mother is a horrible person for putting her kid through that. 2. This is an indictment of the music industry that they're so desperate for anything to sell they resort to the circus acts and freak shows and actual singing ability be damned.

The man suffered an insignificant fatality.

@enoch

you honestly think this shitstorm of a "discussion" is a good example of debate and discourse? It started off nice enough but the @shinyblurry web-bot detected the word atheist in its search algorithms and ran its "scripture_dump_#647.bat" script and then insecure @chingalera heard the commotion and decided that enough people weren't paying enough attention to him so he had to enter the fray.

and of course the people who just haven't been around long enough to know how those two operate unwittingly took their bait and assumed that these people were actually genuine and engaged them and viola! instant shitstorm

This has nothing to do with taking offense. You honestly think we ignore people merely because we disagree with them? Fuck that and fuck you for thinking so. We ignore people because we don't think they add anything to the discussion and their posts eventually become noise and distraction.

This has everything to do with people who have no actual interest in the community here and are just here to push an agenda or they're here to agitate people in a non-constructive way.

there is NO debate in this thread, there is NO discourse here. just brick walls and trolling.

@messenger this is EXACTLY why moderation is needed because this thread demonstrates exactly how there is NO self-moderation going on. Things are blowing up now until the next time someone falls for the chigalera/shinyblurry trap and we do this all over again lather rinse repeat and zero progress.

This sift keeps naively assuming that everyone wants to contribute constructively. Not everyone does. Some people are just attention whores. Dissent and offense is fine as long as it can be done constructively and you can at least make a decent argument to back it up. Most of us do that here, but non-insignificant number of us don't And sometimes you have to pull out the weeds.

Not every opinion is equal. You want debate and discourse here? Well there are rules and a structure to that. If you can't back your shit up or you commit blatant logical fallacies or are non-constructive, expect to get your ass kicked. That isn't squashing dissent, that's enforcing a standard.

I don't feel compelled to provide concrete data because I never took a concrete stance for or against scientific spending. Even when referencing military research it was because some people commented about cutting military spending as though that would have no effect on research funding.

My posts were to point out that the question of research with merit is a very difficult one to answer especially if "the greater good" is used as a criteria because "greater good" encompasses things outside of science and which may be much more immediate than the results of research (ie healthcare, employment, international affairs, etc.)

Those things being high impact and immediate could have a negative impact when using "greater good" in a simplified way because each person's cost-benefit analysis of research will vary depending on their circumstances. I can only assume that the greater good is some kind of aggregate so you cant ignore the individual.

In fact, in order to use the greater good as a measuring stick to even START this debate in a "concrete" way as you say, the following would have to be answered and I don't think you could get a room of people to agree on the answers to them much less a nation or planet.


Who is affected by the greater good?
What do we mean by greater good (greater outcome, greater meaning, greater support)?
How is it measured?
Over what period of time?
In what way and to what are we comparing it?
What terms is the final measure of the cost-benefit analysis? Dollars? Happiness? Health? Opinion?

You said your reaction is not fanatic, yet you're attacking me as a foe despite the fact I never actually rallied against ur stance.

This entire time I'm essentially saying "people need to be more aware of the larger picture when trying to answer this question because both sides seem to focus on the smaller parts that support them (and therefore come across semi-fanatic). Furthermore if a proper analysis is used then ud likely find some research doesnt cut the mustard and some is not as insignificant as it might have first seemed."

To which you've promptly replied each time explaining about how mistaken I am in my understanding of the importance of scientific research. I left a piece of your last post so you can see how aggressively you address me directly despite me never having said I disagree with, but only with the vigor of which people will argue scientific research even when the other side has a valid point...or in this case were not making the point ur arguing against to begin with.

I was attempting to say that people should not be fanatic on either side of this argument, as not all scientific research is the most efficient topic or use of resources and not all research deemed "insignificant" is actually insignificant.

The fact that people reacted so strongly to ANY criticism of current research or justifications for it shows just how fanatic some people are about the need to defend any and all research.

It's the nature of a scientist or science minded people to find value and merit in almost any scientific pursuit. But in a world of limited resources and with many other problems, we have to accept that there is an opportunity cost to any and all research, no matter how important.

For some the valuation of this opportunity cost will differ.

Explain to someone who has no insurance or has a problem with medical bills or has no job or has family members fighting abroad or is getting foreclosed on....that we need to spend money to better understand hermaphroditic snails and the intricacies of their mating rituals in order to better understand evolution and reproduction to maybe one day apply that technology to genetic research or fertility programs.

Then watch them give you the look of "thats great but why do I care about that now?" and understand that they are part of the greater good too.

As someone who loves science and believe research is absolutely important, I think both sides do a horrible job of trying to address the issue. To say that seemingly insignificant research is obviously unnecessary is wrong, as much of science is built upon research never intended for the purpose at hand.

However the opposite is not always true either. Not all science and research brings enough value to the table to justify the spending to do it.

If you're trying to use "the greater good" as a measure for what solutions to use or what problems are most important, then you have to accept that even some things like ecological research or environmental issues may not cut the mustard if their scope or impact are not large enough.

I also find it interesting when people clamor to cut military spending as if they didn't understand that a lot of current technology and research is piggy backing off research done for military purposes (and some of which may be funded by military spending).

As an ecologist, I resent the fact that this "Moore" person thinks Snail mating science is a waste of tax payer dollars. When people do this kind of research they are trying to answer a larger ecological question, or trying to find what the ecological impact of a species is. And there a lot of seemingly insignificant organisms that contribute more to this universe then the hot bag of air that is Steve Moore.