Your video, Circle of Abstract Ritual, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Though this was interesting. Thought you might also think so. http://jop.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/09/06/0269881114548296.abstract

Circle of Abstract Ritual has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy on that post.

@VoodooV

your comment is the definition of circular logic.
ignoring the meat of my commentary to actually repeat what i said,and for what?

i was pointing out your lack of humanity.
i was pointing out that you use the very same tactics of former sifters that got banned because of their:harrassing,belittling and personally derogatory commentary directed at other sifters.

i watched you cry like a little girl and call dag out on multiple occasions when it was done to you.yet you feel it totally acceptable to do it to others you disagree with.

hypocrisy in action and you are totally oblivious to that fact.

other sifters criticize bob and lantern,myself included,for the exact same reasons i posted in my commentary (which you just regurgitated) but i dont see them following them from thread to thread to ridicule,belittle and berate, but YOU do.

i was not defending lantern.i was pointing to your hypocrisy and lack of humanity.
i was pointing to the fact that when YOU were the object of ridicule and harassment,you cried for bannation.

so how come when YOU harass it is somehow some social justice issue?
that your golden-honeyed words are really for the betterment of mankind but when its done to you..well..they are just being big meanies to you.

irony seems to be lost on you.

since your commentary reveals 2 dimensional thinking i can only assume you will take my commentary as somehow being a hateful attack against you.i assure,this is not my intent,nor does my commentary indicate an abstract support of lantern.quite the opposite.lanterns commentary was never my point to begin with friend.

i have offered multiple times for you and i to clear any grudges or disagreements in private.which were always ignored.

so i have said it before,and i will say it again:love your commentary.hate your high horse.

hypocrisy makes my eyeballs itch.
and you ARE a hypocrite voodoo.

@newtboy If you've heard "most Teabaggers" advocating such things, why haven't you reported them to the "authorities" for conspiring to commit a crime?

Leaving lies and absurdities aside, "advocating" something is legally different from specifically inciting someone to commit a crime, knowing that they will in fact go through with it. I guess Manson could've claimed that he was joking or something, but the court didn't think so any more that they would think that Bin Laden and the other 9-11 "masterminds" were just "advocating" without expecting anything to happen. Manson was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, not with actually murdering anyone. "Most" Teabaggers aren't conspiring to kill anyone.
Like the head of a criminal organization "conspiring"* or ordering a subordinate to go take someone out, a lot depends on the relationship between the instigator and the one who does the deed -- which is not the same as "advocating" generally or to random people to do some criminal activity in the abstract. So, yeah.. why, indeed, would they get such a "bad rep?"
As for Manson getting a "bad rep?"
It's a mystery dude, a total mystery.


*The charge does not require actually committing any crime (other than conspiring) of going through with it. That's why law enforcement likes entrapment so much: because they can make arrests by instigating people to plot a crime. It's like hiring an undercover cop pretending to be a prostitute. No actual crime was committed, but the intention to commit a crime itself is considered a crime. But, to be sure, there's some degree of "mind reading" involved in the charge of conspiracy, as the law implies the assumption of intent. The charge, then, lends itself to false accusations (and convictions) too. (Apparently social media is inundated with agents trying to get people to agree to crimes so that they can get arrested and prosecuted for conspiring. Of course, nobody trolls videosift for legal advice.)

@A-Winston @lantern53

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

I'll simplify it for you - those who are not well educated in a subject greatly overestimate their ability at the subject, because they don't know all of the things that they don't know.

Those who are better educated in a subject greatly underestimate their ability at the subject, because they know how complicated it is.

Now you two don't know about science, and that's ok - that's not an insult and i don't want any of this to be insulting. But it is meant to be a reminder that you are talking about one of if not the most technical and complicated abstract subjects that we as a species pursue. If you don't even understand the "scientific method" (a distinct term) and how the "scientific community" (another distinct term) works and comes to consensus, how can you possibly hope to decipher fact (science) from fiction (propaganda)?

I keep having to post this, but i'll do it again. The scientific community is made up of all kinds of people such as university lecturers and students (yes, your kids might be part of the community), amateur scientists, people at research institutions.... anyone who cares enough to approach things methodically and systematically, anyone interested in finding out as much as we possibly can about everything we can. Real science does not get paid based on results - the funding is provided for the research and the research finds whatever it finds. You can't lie about science, because other anal bastards (far worse than me) are just waiting to find something wrong with it and pillory it. That's how the scientific community works, it's like internet comments only worse. You can't get away with doing bad science for long.

Most people in scientific research do not have a lot of money, do you understand that? I can tell you right now - i contribute to scientific papers and such, so that makes me part of the scientific community. I'm just a post-grad student living on a student loan and doing something that i enjoy. My lecturers make a living, but they are not well-off by any means. We also suffer tax when politicians take our evidence and twist it in front of our faces. And we're left standing here, exasperated, wondering why you'd listen to non-experts over experts. If your doctor said you had diabetes, you wouldn't ask a politician to confirm it? If you want a scientific opinion, consult the scientific community.

I would love you to ask yourself the following question; "What do i really know about the scientific community and the scientific method?" Because if you took half an hour one day to go to an accredited university and ask the science department about how science works, how consensus is formed, and what makes good scientific practice, you'd be able to rid yourselves of these myths that somehow all scientists (i.e. average people, doing scientific research for the sake of science) are in some kind of club or gang or being paid to say that humans are causing climate devastation. The reason the majority of people say that is because the science speaks for itself and is not open to interpretation. The facts are facts.

Are you really thinking this through?

I want to show you one final thing, and it comes from the wikipedia page on Scientific method (which i recommend you read to avail yourself about which you speak, please don't speak from ignorance).

"The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false."

The science speaks for itself, and i recommend you start listening to real scientists. Why prefer the opinion of a few individuals who are either flawed in their scientific reasoning or flat out being paid to lie? The scientific community is in full agreement.

Edit: Sorry for the long post, but you're talking about something you don't understand and it exasperates me. You wouldn't come here and talk about the details of internal medicine, but you're quite happy to tell a scientist, to his face, that he doesn't know science.

@Trancecoach - they respond in literature all the time. A scientist's response is to prove it, scientifically. They do, and are, all the time. But most people do not understand science and those that do still find scientific papers daunting and difficult to follow. People like the two i mentioned above, they don't have a hope in hell of understanding the source of the information, and they sadly look to the wrong people to explain it to them.

There are plenty of times when I've had both the means and motivation to kill someone. What stopped me? Yeah, I didn't want to go to jail, but primarily I stopped myself because I know that killing someone is wrong and that cutting me off in traffic is not a morally justifiable reason for murder.

As for your marriage, that's a perfect example of how your argument falls apart. Are you telling me that there would be no repercussions on your life if you got caught cheating on your wife? Because unless your wife would just roll her eyes and go "oh asexymind, you and your crazy extramarital affairs", you are being coerced and therefore your decision to not sleep with all the women lining up outside your door is not virtuous.

Just because there are negative consequences to an action, doesn't mean that not performing that action isn't the virtuous path.

But bloody hell, do we need those negative consequences! You only have to look at the finance industry to see how people behave when there are no repercussions.

We don't live in an abstract philosophical conundrum where people will be moral "if we just give them the chance!!!"

We live in a world that has been ceaselessly fucked over by the powerful. Where the poor get exploited and the environment gets destroyed because the majority of those in power (and I don't mean politicians, I mean the people with power) are complete psychopaths, in the clinical sense of the word. If we didn't have government rules, you'd still be working on the weekend and your kids would be working with you.

I agree that humans are influencing climate change, but this comment completely misstates the result of the Cook report.

Quoted from the abstract:

" examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming"

32.6% of the 11,944 - that's where they indicated that 97% of the papers said that humans were either 1) responsible for 50+ % of the observed warming (a small %) or 2) influencing the climate (most of the papers). Yes, humans are influencing the climate. Are they the primary driver? Maybe, but maybe not. More work is needed.

"But I also like to snowboard and camp and lots of other things where I need a 4wd."

Sure everyone has their "exceptions."

"The fact that it's less of a net negative effect than others in my socio-economic bracket is irrelevant."

Yes, totally irrelevant.

"business will continue a race to the bottom."

As well as all the individuals with their particular "exceptions."

"Unlike your holier than thou stance, I recognise that I am a part of the problem"

Haha, that doesn't sound like real contrition to me!

"If we are going to fix this, it will only be fixed by efficiencies of scale."

Good luck with that. In the meantime, enjoy traveling the world and outdoors activities. I do too.


EDIT: "I recognise that there is a problem, and I recognise that the solution is going to be incredibly hard work either way."

You're not going to do anything about it. This is all an abstraction to you. But, then, the rest of us already know that.

"I am probably among the worst in the world in terms of resource consumption. Unless you're dirt poor and living in the third world, you are too."

Yep. More reasons why those who most protest global warming are the least likely to do anything about it.

These debates are just "entertainment," to keep you occupied with nothing of consequence while you get plundered and beg for more. But, as you recognize, there are no "victims" but only willing participants. So maybe "plunder" is too strong a word. "The people" seem to actually like it. And that's their right.

No. It is incredibly difficult to convict someone of inciting violence under U.S. law for two reasons. First, the state must have a statute on record prohibiting such speech (not all states do) and second, even if such a law exists, the state has to prove that the speaker intended to goad another to commit violent acts.

Furthermore, a sign that says "Kill the niggers" or "Rape a woman" would probably not be violations of incitement laws since the Supreme Court has held that proclaiming abstractly a belief in violence is not the same as, in their words, "preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action." On the other hand, if this guy in the video is standing in the quad urging men to rape a particular woman (or all women currently in the quad for that matter), that would likely be grounds for an incitement charge. For more info see the wikipedia page on fighting words and incitement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#Incitement_vs._fighting_words

"Tenderness can be just as abstract as insanity"

Or how about the opposite...people who believe that acting crazy and interesting MAKES them an artist. I've known far too many 'artists' who bring no skill to the table...but they sure do look and act the part.

If you want to be an artist you're going to need to master some medium, whether it's clay or paint, physical performance or whatever; learn to make a cup before you delve into the abstract concept of the emotion of "cup".

Serendipity may play a part in artistic creation, but it shouldn't be the ONLY part. Don't throw clay at a wall because that's all you can do and then tell me it was your intention. If you need to tell me, "it's the reaction of the viewer that's the art itself", then you need to take a drawing class or something and try again.

I can appreciate a quirky person. If that's the persona you want to hitch your ego to, then I will respect that choice. Just don't go thinking you have to be an "artist" to sell it. Or at least, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's my reaction that is your artistic creation.

OK. I feel better.

'Lands' are also not so distant any longer so much as they are some abstract concept to most people having never traveled outside of their computer chair or suffered directly from an overtly oppressive regime or prolonged conditions of want or discomfort in the last three generations. Let the grocery trucks stop running in Canada or the United States for a couple of months and consider the change of heart and attitude. Breadlines??? Unavailability of fuels? How soon folks forget that the entire world teeters with some seriously fucked-up psychopaths at the helm in recent history.

How little people care to consider history as a warning.

You'll have to get over the annoyance. It's crazy to think that religion - which thrives on such an entrenched part of the human psyche and is so deeply intertwined with history - will just admit defeat and lay down all of its claims to relevance in the face of any adversity. The best we can hope for is a long and gradual retreat.

I'll take what I can get. Relegating God to merely an abstract influence as the cause of the Big Bang has very little relevance to anyone's day to day life, whereas denying evolution, climate change, etc... is significantly more detrimental to scientific progress.

@Trancecoach
interesting.
i admit my utter failure in expressing my position and decide to use someone i highly admire who could explain it better.

and in doing so i offend you?
and you respond by offending my sensibilities?

do you REALLY think i cannot think for myself?
are we in some epic battle where there is some abstract "winner"?
i thought i was talking to someone who i am quite fond of and who i also just happen to disagree with on this particular subject.

i want to understand why you choose your flavor of libertarianism.
which i dont because you never address the elephant in the room.it appears to me your style of libertarianism is circa 1790.
even blankfist agreed that corporate power and influence MUST be restructured and possibly returned to temporary partnerships,a privilege given by the people,to be dissolved when the project was concluded.
and blankfist is a die hard libertarian.

or is the corporate tyranny not as evident to you?
maybe reading too many heritage foundation essays?
have any of these articles outlined the flaws in capitalism?
like that the system will ultimately begin to cannibalize itself when growth becomes stagnant?
that unfettered capitalism will lay waste to everything..eventually and eventually everything will become a commodity.
to be sold and traded.

its not like it is a huge secret.
the problems with capitalism are well know and well understood,but i guess you are not one of those people.

and i am not one of those people who are good at conveying things such as these..never have been.
but i have always been respectful with you,even when i disagree.
and yet you assume my intentions.
take offense when i meant none and snipe at me from some imagined superior balcony.

i was never trying to say you were wrong.i just wanted to understand why you believe the things you believe.

and now as i am writing this i am being forced to question.
will he take this sentence wrong?
how will he perceive this word in that context?
and i have to admit..its kinda irritating.

but ya know what?
thats on me.
i made certain assumptions about you based an very little.
he likes floyd..check.
dropped some acid back in the day...check.
is educated and in the psychology field...check.

so every correspondence i have had with you is with that person in my minds eye.
i have written every word to you as if you were sitting right next to me.

i wrote about this before and you ridiculed me then.i should have gotten the message.
you are not the person i gave you credit for.
you are you.
and thats ok.

watch the video if you wish.its pretty informative.
or dont.
it doesnt matter.

i apologize for offending you.
/end transmission