A banned @chicchorea, I thought I had seen it all! Hurry back!

He can wait, he made you wait 2000 years!

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
shit! it's this saturday?? i was planning on being raptured.
In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/158194 For the Doug Stanhope event!

http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/158194 For the Doug Stanhope event!

Belated thanks! I forget I have a profile page sometimes!

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Happy Easter to you.

He left a spammer style comment on my member page. Don't know him, just random. Perhaps this isn't ban worthy?

"I have been in the music business all my life . It was my 70th birthday and I decided to record this song entitled Old Dogs and share this with my Boomer friends . So far the response is to cool . it’s scheduled for Growing Bolder PBS /TV /Radio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8inY6flQFaE&feature=youtube_gdata

All the best with your creative adventures
Mickey

Mickey Carroll
Grammy Nominee
Gold Record Recipient
"


In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Hello my friend.

I found your ban of..., I would like to support you but am find pause. I could not establish a line to you via the mentioned Boomer reference. The Red P did not post a vid on the Sift but included one in a profile comment to you so no self link. Can you help me on this so I can proceed?

I saw you BMed this but didn't vote for it, thought it might be a small oversight

http://videosift.com/video/The-Perimeter-Institute-The-Challenge-of-Quantum-Reality

So how do I update the link to that dup video I posted. I failed, as you can see by my not dead when it is still dead...I don't know how to fix things

Well said sir. Some people like to shoot the messenger, then throw away the message.

In reply to this comment by TheGenk:
While you both (dystopianfuturetoday and billpayer) have a point here, it's not as black and white as you describe it. She does have a few points(even though they are exaggerated), the special treatment of islam for instance.

Having said that, I think the UNHRC is a farce anyway which should be obvious if you look at who is a member of it: Saudi Arabia, China, Bahrain, Russia, ...

I am not really sure, I think he is talking about the fallacy of explanation. This is an informal fallacy were the scope of the question is too small both in explanation of the scope and depth of the phenomena. The jist of the conversation was I suggested that voting might be a bad thing to include as a birth right, that some right of passage might make for a better system for all. You would value you vote more, and it would make sure that the most vested in doing the leg work on being a good citizen would have a say in how things went on. There are pit falls, as in all systems, to avoid. And I wasn't even proposing it as an end all solution, but he labeled me a fascist and so I ended the conversation and any desire to participate with conversations with him anymore.

I can handle ideas outside my way of thinking, I rather enjoy it...iron sharpens iron and all. But I don't like dogmatic attacks against any idea that isn't considered normal. DYS has the same unreasonable "faith" in pure democracy as he criticizes in people with the same faith in market economics; both misplaced imo. I find a systemic problem with democracy, and I strive to find a solution for its inherit flaws. I might come back and conclude that it is the best solution given that weaknesses of man, but I won't give up thinking outside the box because of dogma.


In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
@GeeSuss what's the blue sky defence?

@DFT why are you fucking chickens? That's not cool man, you can seriously harm them psychologically.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I had a similar interaction with a particular videosifter, except that it was about denying poor people the right to vote instead of killing them. When I expressed shock and outrage, he used the blue sky defense.

On average, less that 50% of people vote with no restrictions. And you can only vote for people on the ballet in most cases. Nor was it solely poor people, but go ahead and keep fucken that chicken.

Hehehe careful, he might call you a fascist like he did me! I was thinking something along the same lines though, but not something like a poll test...those are usually used for exclusionary reasons. I was thinking something more in line with a community gesture. I don't mind people having a vote that aren't necessarily smart in areas. What I find a problem is that most people do not vote. In fact, the lowest voting demographic are the lowest earners: the lowest 20% earners have a 36.4% turn out. Those people are basically under represented in democracy. There are many reasons why this is the case, but the most important reasons is that it doesn't hold much value in peoples minds. I have come to imagine that this is because it is "free", and something free has little value in your mind. After the wheels of the government have been spinning for so long, I think there is a complacence that comes over the voting population.

If you look at this data, it doesn't look good. Voter turn out from 1824 - 2008 has been on a jumpy decline. And even at its best, at 75% or so, that is still not a majority vote when a vote is achieved (50% of 75% = 37.5%). My idea was to have some sort of event, some sort of right of passage if you will so that not voting would seem like you wasted that old time back in the past and add as an extra motivation factor in fighting against government corruption. Also, it takes the arbitrary nature of birth out of the equations, and only people willing to make a small sacrifice would get those extra set of rights that we all take for granted now.

This is all just a thought experiment at this point, I think it has a lot of merit though, the same with your idea as well. As with any, there are pitfalls and things that you don't anticipate. Most assuredly, my system wasn't to exclude poor people, in fact, in the example I was drawing from, the poor people had the highest voter turn out...for the rich it wasn't worth the time to earn the right to vote. Then again, wealth shouldn't have anything to do with your right structure, only that persons commitment to be a good citizen, however he chooses to do so.


In reply to this comment by sillma:
I would test peoples knowledge of politics, finance and such to see if they're capable of understanding what they're voting for, I'd expect around 5-10% of the population to pass it. After heavy studying of course.

If you sifted it, I would vote for it. Pretty moving.

In reply to this comment by vaporlock:
Here is a BBC interview with the guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXNJ3MZ-AUo

I actually choked on my drink and nearly did a nasal take on that, lol.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
i pretty much exclusively let only nerds into my vagina. but i've never wanted to put so many nerds in my vagina at once. i want to put anonymous in my vagina. i want them to live there and take it all down from inside me. then i want to give birth to the revolt. but they won't have to wear those stupid guy fawkes masks when they come out, they will wear their beautiful beautiful faces.

After much thought and consideration, I don't come to the same conclusion. Let me take the situation we have here in the USA.

Voting is relatively easy here in the US, the biggest obstacle are lines, and the will to stand in said line. Yet, at best you can expect for an average national election is 40%. In that, 100% are bound by that 40%. And of that 40%, you only need majority in most cases to pass legislation. Let us say of that 40% that voted, it was perfectly partisan; 20% red, 20% blue. This would mean that at best in most instances, 100% of us are bound by what 20% of people have said.

Making voting easy has seemingly cheapened it in peoples minds, I think. And my conjecture is that is because you never really "op in" to being a voter in any significant way. There is never a time where one commits himself to his country, and his country to him. There is no right of passage other than age. This is the connection I am seeking to create in my mind. Where there is a true act of commitment by both parties to one another, and that imbibes a since of responsibility and worth.

There is a problem of who manages the rights of the non-citizens, but that is a problem we already have with resident aliens and such. This would just be taking that idea to a new level. There are lots of ins and outs to manage in my theoretical construct, but they are by no means insurmountable, or poise any real problems of liberty any more than a person who chooses not to vote does now. My point is being born is arbitrary. Making a choice to partake in a social contract isn't implicit, or explicit in birth. What I am proposing bears much in common with the confederation in Star Ship troopers if you have ever read it. While I think I would discourage military as a main means for obtaining citizenship, I think citizens would be highly motivated to make their country free from corruption because of the investment they made with time, sweat and blood, personally.

In reply to this comment by mgittle:
My reply to gwiz dealt with your post as well. Really, I should have combined or separated them for more clarity. My bad, you're right, it does look like I was saying you agreed with the property rights thing, and the @ to you should have probably been in the second one along with the one for gwiz.

However, I stand by my opinion that voting needs to be easier instead of harder, and governments don't need more power to disenfranchise people. If we want better results, we need a more informed and educated public or a different form of governing ourselves. Like I said, I agree with the sentiment you and others are expressing, and restricting voting is a logical solution, but I think there are many unforeseeable and unintended consequences in implementing tests/classes/etc for voting. See my comments in that thread about corruption, etc.

Regarding birth in a country giving you specific rights, well, that's just how it happens to work culturally, right? I mean, if you look objectively at the concept of countries, they're automatically going to be fairly arbitrary simply due to the lack of choice in being born. Historically, it was and easy way of determining citizenship in a world where lines on a map could help you determine a lot. In today's world, those lines are all blurred, and technology gives us all sorts of options for keeping records, administering tests, etc. So, we have new options and there's nothing wrong with thinking out loud about that.

You obviously didn't read anything I wrote because I didn't agree with the prospect of land being the basis for voting. I spin your comment on critical thinking back at yourself and challenge you to read my comments for how they were intended. GWIZ has a comment right above yourself that mimics what I have said in a much better phrasing. Perhaps try and be a bit more transcendent yourself, sir.

In reply to this comment by mgittle:
@GeeSussFreeK @Winstonfield_Pennypacker

Let's do a fun critical thinking exercise! You guys really need it.

Say someone's company asks them to move to a different state or city and take a position for 2 years, after which they'll be asked to move again to a possibly more permanent position. That person looks at the local rental/housing market and decides it'll be cheaper to rent for those two years because the cost of the loan/interest and the potential hassle of selling the house (possibly at a loss) is really risky to deal with when you know you're going to move.

That person, who is capable of making an intelligent and informed decision, shouldn't be allowed to vote? Even using your "logic", I can see how someone could feel it prudent to prevent "temporary" residents from voting on local matters like millages, mayoral elections, etc, but state and national elections? Really?

This also doesn't consider college students, people who are living together but not married (such as with significant others or family members who own homes), or millions of other people who simply can't afford homes or don't want the lifestyle, maintenance costs, etc of owning a home.

I was really trying to avoid making any sort of personal attack with this...but I have to ask, did you even think about what you were saying before you typed it out?

Uhg, I just watched this and am reminded how much I hate O'Reilly. So rude, arrogant, demeaning, and more!