You still here these days?

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 6 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 5 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

And I'm saying I can't even fathom why you would think the one necessarily implies the other.

In fairness, I must confess that I didn't really get what you were trying to say here:

Stealing is the absence of an action, which is why it is a valid human right. I'm not stealing anything from you (of my own free will) so what other action do you wish me to perform? Healthcare, or food or water for that matter, is not the absence of an action but rather material goods.

Let me start by saying, stealing is an action someone performs. I think perhaps you meant to say that the right to property depends on the absence of stealing from others?

I guess the implication here is that you reject the idea that rights could ever demand action on the part of others?

If you jump out in front of a moving car, does the driver have an obligation to try to stop?

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
Your analogy isn't valid, but even if it was it doesn't really answer what I am saying. It's fine if you think people are morally obligated to feed the hungry, or you want the government tax dollars to be spent on such things, but why is there the need to call it a human right? It's misleading and intellectually dishonest.

If I have the right to be fed, then you have the obligation to feed me. If you really believe that why won't you buy me dinner?

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
Stealing is the absence of an action, which is why it is a valid human right. I'm not stealing anything from you (of my own free will) so what other action do you wish me to perform? Healthcare, or food or water for that matter, is not the absence of an action but rather material goods. If you wish to claim such things are a right (a noble goal) then you would have to ensure that you can provide those things to the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet. I wish someone could do such things but it's clearly not possible -- hence why material goods or services can never be a "human right."

I can't provide habeas corpus or freedom of religion for the whole world either. It doesn't change my view on whether I think every human being is entitled to it.

For that matter I tend to think people have a "right to life", but nobody can abolish death, or even just murder. I think we can do a lot for starvation and sickness, and probably a lot more about murder as well, but none of these things come free.

So I ask people to willingly agree to legal arrangements that establish these things as legal rights to services, and legal obligations to taxes, at least within the region known as "the United States".

Then they call this a violation of their rights, because, you know, taxes are evil or something. At a minimum, they come up with some arbitrary meta-definition of rights that they insist should supersede my own conception of rights.

And to be frustrating, I don't have rigid rules surrounding the limits of what people's rights should be. I tend to think of it in terms of what kind of injustice it would be to deny it to someone. Denying me a Ferrari doesn't seem so unjust. Denying someone the ability to see a doctor when they're ill, even if they're a convicted murderer, doesn't seem right.

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
Stealing is the absence of an action, which is why it is a valid human right. I'm not stealing anything from you (of my own free will) so what other action do you wish me to perform? Healthcare, or food or water for that matter, is not the absence of an action but rather material goods. If you wish to claim such things are a right (a noble goal) then you would have to ensure that you can provide those things to the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet. I wish someone could do such things but it's clearly not possible -- hence why material goods or services can never be a "human right."

You really should try to walk through why you think this is somehow a trap for people who think healthcare is a right.

I feel like I've been stolen from because my government taxes me. Send me a trillion dollars to raise an army to overthrow them.

Don't bother with the Paypal, I won't accept your fraudulent fiat currency. Gold bars are the only form of payment I'll accept.

C'mon, cough it up, this is a matter of human rights, and you have an obligation to me that extends beyond any form of government practical ideas about how to best guarantee those rights.


In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
We aren't talking about taxes we are talking about human rights. If it is human right you have an obligation to me that extends beyond any form of government, yes?

So, do you want my PayPal address?
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^imstellar28:
Also, I'm feeling a little under the weather today. Can you guys go ahead and send $100 my way so I can pick up some medicine at the store?

Yes, as long as what we're really talking about is me paying my taxes, and that gets used to pay for your (and my) medical bills.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 4 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

I completely agree btw. I can't bring myself to watch oberman so I won't comment there. I love the logic people used there...since he is a doctor and has the ability to help people...he must. I would like to see the tables turned on that logic and say they are responsible for every child that starves for every piece of luxury they buy. It is not like there is a shortage on doctors that person can get help from...now food on the other hand...

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
Non-violent protest against a political ideology...hmmm where does that sound familiar...Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi? Didn't they receive Nobel Peaces Prizes? And this guy gets a * Terrible and on the "Worst Person List?"

The liberal mind is seriously warped...

I was thinking "Should we take Stellar with butterfly nets, or tranquilizer darts?"

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
This discussion to me draws the line between half full and half empty. Can you find something positive in an overwhelming negative subject, or can you only see the negative?

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Well said! Your words have a simple elegance which has forever eluded me.

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
There are quite a few digressions in this thread, but I don't think anyone has actually addressed the content of the video. The speaker is saying that groups are merely abstractions; that you shouldn't forsake the trees for the forest.

We all want to live in a happy, peaceful society - collectivist or individualist. I don't think theres any denying that. What the speaker is trying to illustrate with his tree/forest metaphor is that the soul of these two ideologies is actually quite different - despite the fact they share the same goals.

Expanding on the tree/forest metaphor, one might define a "good" forest as one with a lot of healthy, thriving trees. If, in walking through a forest, you came across an area where the soil was nutritionally deficient and the growth of all the trees in the area stunted, you might view this forest as somehow imperfect. To correct this flaw, you could cut down the largest tree you can find, grind it up into fertilizer, and spread it around on the soil to help the stunted trees thrive.

What actually happens though, when you cut down a tree to grow a forest, as it were, is you lose sight of whats actually important. Yes, by some definition you are fulfilling "the greatest good for the greatest number" but if you have to lose your soul to achieve some measure of "good", what have you really accomplished? You thought you were saving the forest, but the forest doesn't exist. The forest is only how your mind perceives a group of trees; what existed was a group of trees sharing the same habitat. All you did was kill one tree, and use it to fertilize another.

So my question has to be: What glory is there in forging a perfect society, if it has no soul?

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
I read something about IQs that I hadn't really thought of before. If you look at a distribution of IQs:

http://i45.tinypic.com/dyumad.gif

You see that:
68 out of 100 people have an IQ between 85 and 115
2 out of 100 people have an IQ above 130
2 out of 100 people have an IQ below 70

And if you note what an IQ score represents:
70- Mentally Disabled
80 Borderline
90 Low Average
100 Average
110 High Average
120 Gifted
130+ Genius / Very Superior

You find that the average person, at an IQ of around 100, has something in common with roughly 68-95% of their peers. Someone in this group can, at least on some level, identify with the vast majority of people around them. To them, the world is more or less homogeneous, consisting for the most part, of people just like themselves. From their perspective, it is only a few people that stick out: the mentally disabled and the geniuses. People you hear about but rarely meet.

However, if you look at the distribution of IQs you find that the difference between average and mentally disabled is only about 25 points - 75 to 100. Incidentally, the difference between average and genius, or very superior, is also 25 points - 100 to 125.

Thus, the life of someone with an IQ of 130 or greater is much different. They can only identify, at least on some level, with less than 2-14% of their peers. To them, the world is also homogeneous, but they are the ones on the outside looking in. An individual with an IQ greater than 130 perceives life very much like an average person would if they were in a room with 100 people, and almost all of them...85%...were either borderline or mentally disabled.


is this correct?
130+ is genius?
well would ya look at that...hmmmm..interesting.

I'll have to start using "Fuck you!" instead of "hello" when we cross paths again then. You know, to be polite. Unless you have a negative connotation associated with that word (which you're suggesting I was wrong to assume).

If, on the other hand, you DO have some kind of negative connotation associated with the word then I don't know why you're even arguing with me.

So fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck you.

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
^You really think I'm unaware of the various usages of the word "gravity"?

A word is a symbol. The emotions, situations, and actions they express may have a serious or critical nature, but the words themselves are passive devices.

"Fuck" is not inherently serious or critical in nature. If the word Fuck evokes a feeling of "gravity" to you, it is because you have past experiences with that word that have created a connotation of gravity.

We all have different life experiences; to pretend that the connotations you have with words are universal...is well...egocentric