glad i was cruising the comments,otherwise i would have never seen your reply.(you replied on your own page).

good to hear things are moving forward my friend.be patient,good ideas take a bit of time to take root.

i simply asked because i was impressed with your exchange with newtboy and your subsequent comments.you appear to be taking the far (though slower) tactic of sticking to the facts and dealing with people in a respectful and open-minded manner.

i think that is the best way to go,though it will not garner you the insta-following that hyperbole and drama that many vegans adopt to convey their message.

that only works in the short run,and in the end you will just find yourself preaching to the choir.a rabid,aggressive and morally questionable choir.all residing in an echo chamber,smelling their own farts.

what you are attempting is hard,will take time but ultimately will be beneficial for everybody.the information you are trying to get across is important and you are challenging not only deep set traditions but also the incredibly bad impression many vegans have left in so many people psyche.

nobody wants to listen to a self-righteous person who behaves as if their choices make them the arbiters of morality,kinda like born again christians.they will simply tune you out at best or ridicule you at worst.

who knows?
maybe you could even change my mind!

(although i aint ever giving up bacon,so let that one go)

guess i am just rooting for you because i know the uphill battle you are facing,and am wishing you luck.
stay awesome man!

ps:maybe you could start to post videos to illuminate the subject you are so passionate about? just an idea.

I usually don't comment on videos I dislike but I really don't understand why people who think of themselves as reasonable beings spend so much effort to preach to the choir. Especially if the end result is no better than the propaganda from the other side.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by SFOGuy.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Leningrad-Cowboys-and-the-Red-Army-Choir-Sweet-Home-Alabama

I really wish people who have important things to say, hired people who can convey them well. I know having the actual researchers/activists doing the talking lends to authenticity, but sometimes you need people to pay attention. "Preaching to the choir" never needs diction or charisma, but this topic in particular needs to reach more ears than those who are knowledgeable already...

Dirt is safe enough to eat. Does that mean I have to eat a handful of dirt? It's weed killer, guys. But, yeah, don't claim it's so casually drinkable if you aren't willing to casually drink it.

It's a video with 2 jerks being played to a choir full of jerks. A circle jerk, in fact.

https://youtu.be/RCFmJ5d85Ek?t=29s

A choir of Syrian refugees performing "Janna Janna Janna" ("paradise) live on a German public broadcaster as part of a call to open the gates of Germany to refugees.

@ChaosEngine I can see how you would feel like this is preaching to the choir (much like he accuses Fat Fred Durst of doing), but there are still good reasons to support this type of dressing down. You have to consider who the audience is for this video. As I see it, there are 3 possibilities: FFD and his followers, fellow sceptics and atheists, and the general public. While, ostensibly, this video aims at all three audiences, it is only the latter where you can hope for any movement.

If FFD is the only voice talking to teenage kids and incurious adults, then more of them will follow him. This video offers a counterpoint and if it influences just one or two otherwise unswayed people to think more deeply about religious claims, rhetorical logic or the scientific process, then it is a win.

Hihi,

I was just wondering, if it is just me OR - whenever I promote a video of @PlayhousePals, it does not show up any bigger than any normal video on the page. Everything else that's under 'Featured *Promoted Video' shows up bigger (when I flip throgh the 'Next Featured Video'... I tried this on Firefox, IE and Chrome, and they ALL show her video as 'normail' size.

Thanks:)

EDIT: The same with lv_hunter 's video:
http://videosift.com/video/reactions-the-the-mountain-viper-fight-GoT
---
(and
http://videosift.com/video/The-Star-Wars-Nerdgasm-Choir)

I almost agree... I think La Marseillaise just edges it out.

Having said that, I've heard choir renditions of the Russian Anthem that blow everything out of the water.

> "I have little love for the state, but I do see a need for some actual 'higher power' (religious one's don't cut it) to further society in less harmful directions."

A "lesser evil" is still evil. I find this a contradiction at best. But you don't, so no need to get into it. So far you seem to be saying that such a "higher power" is or has to be the state, even though you say don't love the state.

> "If you feel a discussion is me forcing beliefs on you, that's just sad to me."

A "discussion" does not force beliefs on anyone. I understand that you are just stating/declaring what you believe. And like I said, I don't think your vote counts for much, so I can't even say that you are forcing your political view on me or on anyone else. So no, I don't think you are forcing anything on me, just stating your beliefs that I can chose to ignore.

> "To me, that means you're closed to any discussion that's not preaching to your choir, or to put it another way, you're only interested in mental masturbation, no distractions."

I'm not sure what you are interested in, so I can't really comment on it.

> "we obviously draw it in differing places, I'm OK with that."

Of course, you have to be ok with it because you can't really do anything about it one way or the other.

>"You need enough like minded people to vote thoughtfully and rationally and it will."

Good luck with that. I predict failure in this. But what do I know? And again, I am not stopping you. Go ahead and convince or find as many like-minded people as you need and vote to your heart's content. Obviously, I won't be one of those who agrees with you, as we have different ideas on what "thoughtfully" and "rationally" means. Voting is your strategy to get what you want out of the state. That's ok. That's your choice. Good luck. It obviously holds little to no interest to me. But I don't need to convince any "like-minded" people to do anything. I can just act on my own and take advantage of all the many ways there are to opt out.

> "So, you don't vote? No wonder you have no representation, that's your fault though.""

Wrong. None of the candidates represent me, so this is an idiotic thing to say. Who should I have voted for that would have "represented" me? Last I checked, there were two heinous options available. And unless there's a tie, your vote simply does not count. And then, will they do what I want them to do even when elected? Sorry. Waste of my time. But again, vote to your heart's content. I'm glad for you that you are being so well represented by your politicians of choice.

>"I can't find a group that fits me (or vice versa)."

Even more remarkable then that you have "representatives" that adequately "represent' you.

You are fortunate in so many ways.
Good for you.

If you change your citizenship to wherever you move they can't tax you anymore...why can't 'free marketers' buy a whole country and try it out fo realsies?
The country and state are owned by us all, we are represented by our government (no matter how poorly). Did school not teach you how that's set up? It should have.
You are saying it SHOULD be all private, which would make it the same thing with no recourse to move out of it, just to different controllers, the new one's not even elected or replaceable. Bad move.
Thank you, the implication that I'm unworthy of discussion with, then continued discussion was at best, odd.
I say the present government sucks, and sucks worse in some places than others. I'm saying we can make it better if we elect better reps, but never perfect for everyone, just not possible. I agree that there's too much 'governing' with far too little result, but I disagree that the answer is to stop governing.
I am surrounded by both cool people and losers, but we're spread out enough that it's easier to ignore the losers from here. I got lucky.
I do, I vote. That's how it's set up to be done, if people were more thoughtful, it would work better.
I only pointed out my situation because you had apparently decided I'm a worthless taker, and that's a mistaken assumption (but an understandable one, I'm odd).
Are you saying I said that 'who cares what you think'? because I never meant to. If you are saying that yourself, that's a problem for rational discussion.
I have little love for the state, but I do see a need for some actual 'higher power' (religious one's don't cut it) to further society in less harmful directions.
If you feel a discussion is me forcing beliefs on you, that's just sad to me. To me, that means you're closed to any discussion that's not preaching to your choir, or to put it another way, you're only interested in mental masturbation, no distractions.
There are degrees of being 'left alone'...just as there are degrees of 'able to do anything that doesn't HARM another'...it's about where you draw the line of 'left alone' or 'harm another'...we obviously draw it in differing places, I'm OK with that.

Bareboards, yer attempt at proselytizing to a choir of one with this post...give it UP!
Get a job, dude?!
Either that or donate a healthy heart in a Styrofoam box marked, "LIVE HUMAN ORGAN" to Jebeezus?!

"as an anarchist i believe all systems of authority and power to be illegitimate until proven otherwise."

I have a different take, in my preferred anarchism. The only one I see as functional, all voluntary hierarchies and authorities are perfectly legitimate. I am free to submit or not to any authority I choose to for my benefit and that is my legitimate right. Also private property owners have a legitimate authority over their property. I can do whatever I want with my property (without violating anyone else's self-ownership and property rights). And under the same conditions, I can legitimately enter into any agreements I want with anyone I want. That would be legitimate private property anarchy.

As of now, the government makes what is naturally legitimate, into something arbitrarily illegitimate, based on the whims of legislators and bureaucrats.

"the burden is on those who profess authority."

I understand what you are saying. And don't think the burden is on anyone. Do not initiate violence on anyone's person of property. Simple. That's it. There's nothing else to prove or not. If anything it is the "burden" to prove you own what you own, in cases of ownership disputes. For that, there is legal precedent on who has the burden of ownership proof etc.

"because even as an anarchist i have to recognize that there needs to be a system which keeps the hands on the scales that keeps the playing field even and the kids playing nice."

The only thing that can interfere and wreck a private property anarchy is aggression, i.e., the initiation of violence against anyone's person and/or property. To prevent that you have legal enforcement and arbitration services (courts). Just like now. Except that there wouldn't be a state monopoly over these. A private law society can work just as well or better than having a monopoly of law enforcement and courts. Monopolies are always inefficient and costly. Always. For any and all goods and services. No exceptions.

"these systems are for the people,by the people and run by the people."

There is not such thing as "the people," in any practical sense. Show me "the people" and I'll show you an abstraction. There are only individuals. "The people" cannot run anything. Even you and I disagree. How are we "the people?" (Furthermore, to have a truly non-violent society, individuals would have the choice as to whether or not to engage in agreements with other individuals. Unlike now, where people are forced into agreements by which "majorities" -- whether actual or rigged -- impose their will upon the minorities. That's what you call "democracy.")

"BUT..you stop there. are you implying that we have a free market now?"

No, we don't have a free market now. We have pockets in which free markets function, however.

"did you actually infer that america begot its wealth and power purely through free market exchanges?"

Yes, mostly it did.

"have you even been paying attention?"

What the fuck does that mean?

"corporate america has been exploiting third world countries for over a century!"

No, some corporations with the help of the US and/or foreign governments have been exploiting some people in third world countries, enriching those corporations and government officials in the US and mostly in third world countries. But this is what made these corporations and government officials wealthy, not what made America as a whole a wealthy nation. America is no longer a wealthy nation as a whole (particular companies are not "America"), but an indebted nation, because of things like these, which go hand in hand with military expenditures too. The average person profits nothing from these corporations and politicians exploiting third world (or any) countries. So no, this does not make America wealthy.

The free market, however (which this exploitation is not), did make America a wealthy nation with rapid economic improvement for the average person (with the regrettable exceptions of African and Native Americans).

"and our government has been the fist that punched the:exploitation,ruination and demise of those countries.hell thats the reason WHY they are third world!"

If you are arguing that the government has been responsible for all this evil, then you are preaching to the choir. Although I take issue with the idea that it is "our government." I don't own it, nor would I want to.

"its shameful and if thats your idea of a free market.
well..you can fucking keep it."

I don't think you have been paying attention, @enoch. No, I don't think we have a free market and you cannot have a free market if there is a government interfering with it. So I don't know what your, "you can fucking keep it," bullshit is about.

"you only seem to address one part of the equation.
or are you oblivious to the harm that corporate america has wrought for the past century?"

Corporate American is a corporatist system, kind of fascist if you want to get technical. It is a mix of private business with government-granted privilege. That is not a free market. Let me say it again, in case you missed it, a truly free market cannot exist while a government monopoly grants privilege to some businesses. That is crony-corporatism, fascism. A free market can only exist as market anarchy. Corporations exploit because of government privilege, be it granted by the US government/state or third world governments/states.

"who or what will keep that behemoth in check?"

Private law based on the rights to contracts and the right of freedom from aggression to person and/or property, enforced by a private legal enforcement system.

The state has not and will not "keep that behemoth in check" as you call it. In fact, the state is the "behemoth." It is absurd to expect the state to police itself. It has not and it will not. That plan is a failure. But "good luck with that."

(btw, I you want to know the real reasons third world countries are third world, particularly Latin America, I suggest you read Alvaro Vargas Llosa's well researched book, "Liberty For Latin America," and see how 500 of state intervention/abuse has led to the current situation. If you want to lecture me about why Latin America is "third world," you'd better do some more research first and really know your stuff. I am quite familiar with the situation there.)

"what do you think will happen when you take regulation off the table?"

When you take government-granted privilege off the table, things get better and corporations and (more importantly) governments cannot abuse individuals, as some corporations and virtually all governments now do. And you replace those privileges (euphemistically called "regulations") with laws based on non-aggression and enforcement of rights to self-ownership and property.

All "exploitation" comes from aggression. All of it.

Aggression means initiating violence. Without government support, no one can initiate violence without becoming a criminal. And criminals shall be dealt with accordingly. But as long as governments/states grant aggression privileges, then you have legalized crime.

"do you understand what feudalism actually is?"

Perhaps you'd like to restate this in a non-condescending way. If you have something to say about feudalism, then say it. Explain whatever you want to explain...

"we are living in what is now being called a "neo-feudalism" state."

I don't care to have a state, so you can take this complaint to the statists. (Good luck with that.)

"you point to the government but not to the invisible hand that owns it.which is corporate america"

"Corporate America" could do little harm if any, if it weren't for some corporations' use of government. Government serves no purpose other than to allow those who control it take from those who don't. The only solution to this is to not have that tool/weapon available to whomever takes control of it. Corporations don't own it. They just use it as much as possible (just like unions do, just like all sorts of special interest groups do, just like voting blocks do, and mostly just like politicians and bureaucrats do, and even citizens who "game" the system in one way or another).

"then again.i am a pretty crappy capitalist."

That likely makes you a "pretty crappy anarchist" too.
No offense intended.
Libertarian socialist kind of contradicts itself, does it not?
Take what you want from this message or not.
Good luck.