That tapir swatted gnats off his back with his schlong-Never saw that one on the telly....

In reply to this comment by Fletch:
Bugs me, but not for any of the choices above.

Lots of things bug me, though. Lots of things. A tiny gnat was bugging (no pun intended) me a little while ago. Finally landed on the desk. I tried stabbing it with a knife. Desk is chipped. Gnat is still bugging me. Fucking gnat.



Dumb ass.

use a hammer.

as well :

Is that chipped desk going to bug you now too?>> ^Fletch:

Bugs me, but not for any of the choices above.
Lots of things bug me, though. Lots of things. A tiny gnat was bugging (no pun intended) me a little while ago. Finally landed on the desk. I tried stabbing it with a knife. Desk is chipped. Gnat is still bugging me. Fucking gnat.

Bugs me, but not for any of the choices above.

Lots of things bug me, though. Lots of things. A tiny gnat was bugging (no pun intended) me a little while ago. Finally landed on the desk. I tried stabbing it with a knife. Desk is chipped. Gnat is still bugging me. Fucking gnat.

Wow wow wow, never once did I say American History X promoted anything remotely related to racism. I said the opposite. "Slashed into" doesn't mean "promoted." Slashed into means "hurt" racism... In fact, "slashed into" is about as far from promoting as possible.

Well that was the biggest fail from you I have seen...and I am only half kidding

Next, I meant you would detest the movie but not the free speech. You know, since the movie was made for one purpose only---capitalistic greed. Of course I am assuming the motives of the people who made the film, perhaps wrongly, but I doubt the makers had the best of intentions without the dollars.

And, on the other note, conservatives are happy with both liberties--but only when both types of liberties are slanted in their favor (For example, see your own part where you mentioned free speech.) Liberals tend to favor both liberties less in that self-serving manner, but most still do manipulate them somewhat.

Hrm, your last point, that the alleged coercive aspect of freedoms impeding freedom is interesting.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
A good example of negative liberty is found in the movie industry. American History X probably slashed into racism these days more (Since our young have the attention span of gnats and wouldn't listen to a long speech) than anything else (Warning, that was a very unverifiable statement.) Positive liberty would disdain such a video, one that is full of violence and racism and it's universal motivation is greed--to acquire property from the movie's sale. Of course, since it has a good "message" it would not be prohibited, of course...
But no, I read it right then.
You obviously don't understand liberty.
For one, American History X is ultimately a powerful story about tolerance, redemption, and forgiveness, and an illustration of the ugliness and pointlessness of racism. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it's actually promoting racism, as you say.
For starters, "positive liberty" doesn't say anything about the video. It's not an ideology, or a dogma.
I think you're trying to make a swipe at liberalism by saying it'd be okay with banning such a film, but the truth is we believe in free speech, and wouldn't want it banned, even if it was some sort of racist screed.
But what is free speech? Is it a positive or negative liberty?
In our legal system, it's barely considered a right. It's viewed as a negative liberty, sorta. The government can't constrain your speech, but private organizations may. Legally, you may spout whatever racist speech you like, but if your employer wants to fire you for doing so they can, and media companies can refuse to publish racist content if they like.
Some conservatives get confused about this (because they don't understand liberty), and think free speech is a positive liberty. They think that they should be legally protected from being fired for saying racist things, or that media companies should be legally compelled to publish whatever sort of racist screed they want to publish. Sometimes they even take this to a ridiculous extreme, and think free speech entitles them to a right to not be criticized for what they say.
See the difference yet?
Liberals generally are comfortable with both types of liberty being "real". Conservatives often assert that property, plus some narrow subset of negative liberty (freedom from constraint by government) is the very definition of liberty. Never mind that the net result of that is a very strict set of coercive limits being placed on people's ability to do as they please...

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

A good example of negative liberty is found in the movie industry. American History X probably slashed into racism these days more (Since our young have the attention span of gnats and wouldn't listen to a long speech) than anything else (Warning, that was a very unverifiable statement.) Positive liberty would disdain such a video, one that is full of violence and racism and it's universal motivation is greed--to acquire property from the movie's sale. Of course, since it has a good "message" it would not be prohibited, of course...
But no, I read it right then.

You obviously don't understand liberty.

For one, American History X is ultimately a powerful story about tolerance, redemption, and forgiveness, and an illustration of the ugliness and pointlessness of racism. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it's actually promoting racism, as you say.

For starters, "positive liberty" doesn't say anything about the video. It's not an ideology, or a dogma.

I think you're trying to make a swipe at liberalism by saying it'd be okay with banning such a film, but the truth is we believe in free speech, and wouldn't want it banned, even if it was some sort of racist screed.

But what is free speech? Is it a positive or negative liberty?

In our legal system, it's barely considered a right. It's viewed as a negative liberty, sorta. The government can't constrain your speech, but private organizations may. Legally, you may spout whatever racist speech you like, but if your employer wants to fire you for doing so they can, and media companies can refuse to publish racist content if they like.

Some conservatives get confused about this (because they don't understand liberty), and think free speech is a positive liberty. They think that they should be legally protected from being fired for saying racist things, or that media companies should be legally compelled to publish whatever sort of racist screed they want to publish. Sometimes they even take this to a ridiculous extreme, and think free speech entitles them to a right to not be criticized for what they say.

See the difference yet?

Liberals generally are comfortable with both types of liberty being "real". Conservatives often assert that property, plus some narrow subset of negative liberty (freedom from constraint by government) is the very definition of liberty. Never mind that the net result of that is a very strict set of coercive limits being placed on people's ability to do as they please...

Ah yes---own property, as opposed to it owning you. I don't believe one can own property, but I believe it can be claimed by someone.

And as goes the example of positive liberty, of course they can impose it with violence. They can also craft multiple ways around the whole argument by policies that hold down black individuals in other ways (Which they have done so a thousand different ways.) So instead of being out in the open, they are now cloak-and-dagger, which still is better than the old days I suppose.

A good example of negative liberty is found in the movie industry. American History X probably slashed into racism these days more (Since our young have the attention span of gnats and wouldn't listen to a long speech) than anything else (Warning, that was a very unverifiable statement.) Positive liberty would disdain such a video, one that is full of violence and racism and it's universal motivation is greed--to acquire property from the movie's sale. Of course, since it has a good "message" it would not be prohibited, of course...

But no, I read it right then.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
As far as positive liberty, it seems just a state of mind more so than the actual concept of liberty.
...
Negative liberty is the vastly closer-to-freedom expression. That's not to say positive "liberty" is a bad thing--but like I said, it is more state-of-mind than actual freedom (I guess you could argue that freedom of thought is the only freedom that matters. Or that freedom to agree as a society is still freedom...)
Of course, I could be reading the whole thing wrong...in which case, ah, it happens--we are human after all.
I think you're reading it wrong.
Let's set property aside for a minute. My favorite positive vs. negative liberty example comes from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Specifically Title VII, which both Rand and Ron Paul said they oppose as being a limit on (negative) liberty.
Title VII basically bans discrimination in privately owned public spaces, like stores, restaurants, theatres, etc. It gives all people the positive liberty of being able to participate in the economy, no matter their race, gender, or creed. They can shop in any shop, apply for any job, and purchase services freely. They've been empowered to fulfill their own potential.
From the negative liberty (and absolutist property) point of view, this is a decrease in liberty -- it involves the state placing a constraint on people's ability to do as they wish with their property. They can no longer put a "Whites Only" sign in the window, and they cannot enforce that policy with violence anymore because an external constraint has been placed on them that limits their "freedom" to do so.
Thing is, "property" is also an external constraint inconsistent with negative liberty. If I want to drive a car, but have no money to buy, rent, or lease one, it's illegal for me to do so, even if there's thousands of idle ones available for me to use in the parking lot. That's an external constraint being imposed on me too.
The only real way to consider property compatible with liberty is by fiat (as libertarians/objectivists do), or to think of it as a sort of positive liberty. You are empowered to acquire objects, and become their master. You are empowered to bequeath that right to whomever you choose. You are entitled to fair compensation if someone damages or steals your property. You are entitled to fair compensation for your labor. And so on.
That's why I get so frustrated with people who have the gall to tell me that I don't understand liberty. Usually they're saying that because they haven't ever been exposed to the other side of the philosophical debate.

@shinyburry
so did god and jesus also reveal themselves to the chipmunks, the beavers, the ostriches, the gnats, the millions of species all over this planet?
did god appear to the fish in fish form? or to the lemurs in lemur form?
or are humans just so special? are we just SO wonderful that a supreme being would construct a planet for us to enjoy?

you do of course realize just how incredibly self-serving that sounds?


dude, i have no doubt you mean well, but seriously man, chill. thinking you have all the answers is arrogant, not humble. a lot of people have had some seriously spiritual experiences, including myself. but i'll be damned if i'm going to be stupid and arrogant enough to slap a name and face on it and proclaim my ascension.

@arvana for http://videosift.com/video/Damsel-fly-catches-a-gnat-in-slow-motion

>> ^mxxcon:

upvote for awesome video footage.
downvote for idiotically "enhanced" crunching sound effects.


The crunching sound was the best part!

Congratulations! Your video, Damsel fly catches a gnat in slow motion, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 31 Badge!

Your video, Damsel fly catches a gnat in slow motion, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^ChairfaceChippendale:

Just listen to those massive jaws crunch down!
Fear the dragon!


Odd that it sounds like biting into an apple.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^Crosswords:
Um yeah, you know what makes me afraid to ride a bike in my city? Its not the idea of needing a helmet, its seeing the God awful drivers around my city. They have a hard time seeing me and not suddenly pulling into my lane when I'm driving a red 3k pound vehicle. I was in a near miss the other day when the car that had been driving next to me suddenly decided my lane was the one to be in. Our cars got so close I think a gnat that just happened to be between them got squished. So yeah no way in hell I'd ride a bike on the streets of this city. Even where they have bike lanes they've decided to measure about a foot away from the curb and paint a line down the normal street. So bikers have this tiny lane to stick too, and the people in cars, who already have a hard fucking time staying in their own lane, now have less room.
So yeah, I'd wager the rest of the world's cities that aren't so concerned about the danger needing a helmet might produce, and more about the danger of morons driving 2 ton boxes of steel and glass at 50 mph or more and their effect on you if the slam into you.

Are you from the US? If yes, I can understand why you wouldn't wanna ride a bicycle. On different occasions, different US friends of mine noticed independently that there are fewer car accidents in Europe/Germany. Then I researched a bit and found out that US driving tests are far easier than the german tests are; and the US tests are very possibly kept easy to have as many drivers on the roads as possible, influenced by the car and gas-industry.


I would have put it in a slightly different manner (more insults at the driverslicense"agency" what's it called -club) but that's exactly my point.
In Germany you fail the driving test (the actual driving test, not the theory beforehands) if you do one of these things once:
- miss of red light
- entering a one way from the wrong side
- missing a stop-sign
- error of priority in traffic
- ignoring any kind of prohibition sign
- not looking in all mirrors and over shoulder as you switch lines
- no blinking lights as you turn
- blinking lights as you dont turn
- no sign of caution if children, elderly or disabled people are around
- not enough distance to the car in front of you
- and a couple of more things
The test can take up to an hour of driving.
Oh yea the whole thing (driving lessons (theory and driving itself) and tests) costs around a thousand bucks.

If I would feel more save riding a bike here, I would close my eyes, stir with my feet and juggle chainsaws while I enter the AUTOBAHN.

Oh yes and to rejoin the topic: No helmet-campaign I heard of so far. No law against riding without one. Nearly all the children in the city wear one. As they get older they apparently grow out of them.