search results matching tag: I dont want it

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (33)     Sift Talk (5)     Blogs (15)     Comments (359)   

Watch a Town Rejuvenate Itself

shang says...

Not insulting, but this is communism that works!

Communism is not a dirty word, and in small towns and states it works well, promotes a sence of community, you are there for your fellow man and everyone shares freely of their labors.

Where it falls apart is disabled, sick, those that dont want to work partake in the free benefits causing anger, jealousy and split in other community members.

Thats why the old saying about communism works great on paper but will eventually fall apart in ptactice. Without a tyrant to keep it in check.

By the way Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek the entire Earth was communism and had eliminated capitalism in the future :-)

Ellen Page Announces She's Gay At Las Vegas H.R. Conference.

Chaucer says...

Again, you are making this out as they are being treated inhumane. In my example of the bakery. They couple that owned it didnt have any problems with the people. They just didnt want to be associated with a gay wedding due to their beliefs. LGBT in turn, ran them out of business because they didnt believe in their lifestyle.

The LBGT is nothing but a mafia type organization. Eventually they will be exposed for what they are.

I also dont want this topic to be about me vs the gay community. I could care less if some dude wants to suck another dudes dick or two ladies scissoring. If gays want to get married, godspeed. However, dont you dare tell me what I should or should not think about that. To me, the bigotry within the gay community is running rampage. They SHOUT that they arent being treated fairly but yet they do most of the persecuting.

StukaFox said:

If they say someone is a second-class citizen because of how they were born, then yes, the belief is invalid trash and should be treated as such. Not accepted, but outright rejected.

Hiding bigotry behind religion is still bigotry.

Snowden outlines his motivations during first tv interview

coolhund says...

People like you just dont want to hear the truth, and thats why you are trying to discredit everyone who says the truth. You just did it again on me.

longde said:

Your namecalling says more about you than those with whom you disagree.

lurgee (Member Profile)

Hidden Camera Catches Dog's Escape from the Kitchen

eric3579 says...

Calling out @ant for mischanneling a video should be done more as he can't seem to figure out how to do it properly although hes been told multiple times by different sifters. @speechless isnt making trouble and doing what we should all be doing regarding making sure the sight is running properly. I applaude speechless taking the time to bring it to ants attention for the umpteenth time. WE members are the ones who make sure the site runs properly. dag and lucky are more of a last resort.

-edit-
Dont want to come off to harsh towards ant because hes a great sifter, but I do think @lucky760 may need to get involved to finally resolve this problem.

braschlosan said:

Why do you like to make trouble? Its something you've done for a while and you rely on white nights to back you up. I know all communities on the intertubes have people like you but at least keep it on the DL.

Jerry Seinfeld doing Louis C.K. joke on 'Talking Funny'

BicycleRepairMan says...

YES, thats the one. It's brilliant on so many levels, but its pretty dark. I dont want to spoil anything, but its worth whatever you want to pay for the bundle

BTW it's pronounced in "live" as in "go, live your life!", (as opposed to live in "Live performance"

eric3579 said:

Is the Tig in this bundle the one you are referring to. It also seems like quite the deal.
https://www.humblebundle.com/

enoch (Member Profile)

Trancecoach says...

Hey @enoch,

> dude,
> i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

Sure, not a problem. It's a complex issue, and requires the time to consider and understand the details.

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither.
> IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

Uh-oh, I hope this isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument.. That is, "since we cannot have a free market lets go for full-blown socialism because it is supposedly better than fascism." It's a false choice and not one I think any true humanitarian would be willing to entertain.

> "should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market? police?
> firefighters? roads?"

In short, yes. Aversion to socialism is based on reality, in contrast to what you're saying. Socialism is failure. Central planning inevitably fails. Central planners do not have the required knowledge to plan an economy. You need economic calculation and economic calculation is impossible to achieve in a socialist "economy."

> "to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your
> arguments you disagree. ok..we both have that right."

Are you trying to conflate "socialized healthcare" with health? Let's not confuse the facts with personal attacks. You seem to be saying, "if you are against socialism you are against health." That makes no sense. None.
I might as well say, "If you are against free markets you are against health."

> "my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized
> society. in my opinion health care is one of them."

In no way did I ever say that I am against healthcare. So what are you talking about?

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither."

You cannot have a free market without liberty any more than you can have liberty without liberty. This is obvious, so?

> "IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

So, if we had a free market, you wouldn't be "against" a free market? Hmm.

> "the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is
> mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged
> into one giant behemoth (plutocracy)."

That's fine, but this is not a matter of "feeling" but a matter of economic reality and empirical evidence and deductive truth.

> "i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism""

Perhaps some economic education will clarify things. Understanding economic calculation, for example, might be a good place to start.

> "i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you."

You're wrong. For one thing, while I do work at a significant fee for my primary clients, I do a significant amount of pro bono work, as a choice, and because I, like you, believe that health care is a human right. And that's a key point you need to understand. You seem to believe that, if the state doesn't take care of people, then no one will, and so we need to steal money from people in the form of taxes, under the auspices of "helping the poor," when in fact, the bureaucrats ensure that only a portion (if any) of those taxes actually arrive with their intended recipients while those who would willingly help those people themselves are deprived of the resources to do so, by depleting their income with said taxes. It's an unnecessary middleman, and faulty logic. The fact that people have, do, and will continue to care about people is the fundamental fact the needs to be understood. As a "man of faith," I would hope that you have enough faith in other people that they would care about and for others (even without being coerced by the government to do so, by force).

Furthermore, we have to apply the free market in toto, not half-assed. You can't have a Keynesian corporatists and an over-regulated system and expect that people will be be able to afford healthcare. The fact is that in a free market, the number of people who cannot afford my services would actually decrease considerably, because many more options would arise for those who still couldn't afford me would but need my services.

> "in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
> the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill."

The free market has ways of dealing with all of these. And yes some win, some lose. But in a socialist system, everyone loses (except for maybe the rulers and their lackeys). This seems, again, to be coming from a place of fear, a sense of helplessness without the government. But alas, nothing contributes to poverty, homelessness, and mental illness more than government does. Fact.

> "the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no
> better,possibly worse in such a system."

So, what is your proof that the poor will have it worse? How do you know? Or is this what you "feel" would be the case?

> "the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in
> place."

So was slavery when the South decided they wanted to keep it.

> "two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
> 1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
> 2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate
> drug prices"

1. Yes, the government would have a monopoly on health coverage, and by extension all of healthcare. Economic calculation at this point becomes utterly impossible. Chaos follows. And healthcare quality and service plummets. I have research studies to support this if you're interested.

2. Why not nationalize pharmaceuticals while you are at it?

> "i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit
> health care will still have similar results as our current because
> the poor and working poor population is growing."

Without appealing to moral superiority, allow me to assure you that there is nothing -- not one thing -- that is moral or ethical about allowing the government coerce, aggress, commit violence, and violate individual's inalienable rights to self-ownership and property rights, as you proposing with such socialist "solutions." In my humble opinion, a true man of faith would not stand for such things, but would stand against them.

> "the poor and working poor population is growing."

Indeed we do, and we all have inflation, cronyism, Lord Keynes' bogus economic "system" and government's meddling to thank for this.

> "i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done
> collectively."

By "collectively," I assume you mean "by central authorities," yes? Because the free market is, in fact, collective. But there is nothing "collective" about central planning. Except for the fact that the "collective" is mandated to obey the dictates of the central planners.

> "its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do."

1. Whatever your "feelings" are about it, there is an economic reality to deal with. Such a sentiment misses the point, and will result in hurting more people than it helps.

2. There is nothing "human" (or humane) in aggression, coercion, and violations of sovereignty, all of which underpins an implementation of a socialized system.

"The right thing to do" is to respect self-ownership and property rights. Doing anything else will eventually backfire. "People are not chessmen you move on a board at your whim."

Any one who is serious about contributing to solving and/or ameliorating the issues of poverty, homelessness, and/or mental illness and many of the other symptoms of our social detritus, needs to develop real, sustainable free market solutions to these. Otherwise, their efforts will be in vain (even if -- or perhaps especially if -- they are adopted by government for implementation). Anything else will not improve any of these but will only serve to make matters worse.

Going back to the basics, free market competition will always provide better goods/services at lower prices than the monopolies (fostered and engendered by the lack of economic calculations due to governmental intervention and regulations). Healthcare is no exception to this. Why would it be? Furthermore, why believe that the central planners/kleptocrats aren't profit-driven? Why believe that a "government" monopoly doesn't suffer from a lack of economic calculation? And what's wrong with being profit-driven, however you may individually define "profit?" Do you/I/we not act for what you/I/we consider the best? (Having faith is not a part-time job.)

Do you not act to achieve desired goals?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you haven't fully thought things through. But as I'm sure you know, "It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost."

> "thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few
> hours but i dont want to bore you. always a pleasure my friend.
> namaste"

It's not boring, but does take a bit of time to consider and understand all of the details. It's complex, and certainly a challenge to navigate your way through the morass of rhetoric, conditioning, and cultural misdirection that is pervasive in our society, especially when considering what passes for "news" and "facts." This is particularly true with regards to the economy, which is heavily politicized, despite being a rational science that can be understood if one takes the time to learn about its mechanism.

Since you signed off with "namaste," perhaps it would be worth reminding you that the first principle of yoga is "ahimsa para dharma" : non-violence is the highest duty.

Perhaps videosift isn't the best medium in which to educate people on non-violence and economics, but alas, it can be entertaining and, possibly have have some positive effect at some point.

Hope this helps.

enoch said:

<snipped>

Trancecoach (Member Profile)

enoch says...

dude,
i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

i was hoping to avoid the myriad directions and confluence of misinterpretation in regards to political and economic understandings may take.

we agree more than we disagree,believe it or not.
we agree we do not have a free market.
we agree that what we DO have is corporate socialism.

the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged into one giant behemoth (plutocracy).

for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-adam smith
we have neither.
IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
at least not in totality.

i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism".its almost an allergic reaction and it bears no base in reality.
should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market?
police?
firefighters?
roads?

i feel this is where we diverge in our understandings.
to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your arguments you disagree.
ok..we both have that right.

another item we appear to diverge is HOW we view the system in place.
its all in the perspective.

you made a very strong argument on the current state of preventive medicine,health food stores and the like.
but lets examine where that perspective came from shall we?

the rich,the affluent,people with money and careers.
THEY can afford all those things you mentioned.

what about the poor,the working poor and the destitute?
where do THEY find the money to purchase items at the GNC,or at an organic food market?

what happens to them?

look man,
this is no simple issue and if i implied that it was i apologize.
my argument was not to suggest some utopian fantasy,as i assume yours was not either.
my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized society.
in my opinion health care is one of them.

i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you.
so my perspective is born from that perspective.
in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill.

the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no better,possibly worse in such a system.

you mentioned cuba.
ok...point.
how about france?germany?denmark?

again,i am not suggesting my idea is some utopian wonderland.this issue is complicated.the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in place.

two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate drug prices.

i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit health care will still have similar results as our current because the poor and working poor population is growing.

i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done collectively.
some we already do:police,fire,public schools etc etc.
i think many europeans got it right.
its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do.

thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few hours but i dont want to bore you.
always a pleasure my friend.
namaste

Stuff They Don't Want You to Know - DMT

Little Baby Skunk Wants To Play

Lord Tywin reveals his knowledge of Arya's ruse - S2E7

Goat Revenge

BANNED TED Talks Graham Hancock on Consciousness Emergence

BicycleRepairMan says...

Sigh. Its not that I dont want a "spiritual experience", its just that the "spiritual" DOES NOT EXIST. This is chemicals reacting with the neurons in your brain, making you think you are experiencing "spiritual" things. It doesn't matter that you go "you just dont understand,man, try it yourself" blahblahblah. I dont have to. Because whatever subjective experience I'll have or you've had, will not change some basic facts that we all have to deal with: That we , along with our brains and our consciousness, are evolved biological phenomena that abide by the laws of physics. We even know that the brain is a fallible instrument thats just SO easy to fool, you dont even need drugs. Right now there are literally billions of people who are wasting almost their entire life believing in nonsense, They use laptops, mobile phones, planes and they've seen the freaking moonlanding, and they think a freaking Palestinian zombie was the son of god who rescued us from collective sin because a couple ate a fruit recommended by a talking snake.
And that's not even the dumbest religion.
People believe such bullshit because they are not really thinking straight , not taking in the facts discovered by science, not understanding the process by which such discoveries are made, not understanding the carefulness by which they are doublechecked, not understanding the implications that such discoveries have.

shagen454 said:

I understand, man. The only way to see that is to do it yourself, obviously if you do not want a spiritual experience, then you are well aware to stay clear.

Here is another article on the science behind how it works: http://www.neurophys.wisc.edu/~cozzi/Indolethylamine%20N-methyltransferase%20expression%20in%20primate%20nervous%20tissue.pdf

CNN Sympathizes with High School Rapists

arekin says...

Thank you, everyone sees any angle that portays consequences on the criminals as sympathy. This is not often the case, and when you dont want to hound the victim out of respect, what story can you tell? I think several news outlets did a tasteful job of portraying what a night of drunken malicious stupidity did to these kids who in all reality did have a future as something other than a criminal.

bmacs27 said:

Finally, a little perspective. I feel like CNN was really just trying to emphasize that this isn't some bullshit punishment. These kids got their asses handed to them. They're fucked. I think this was in direct response to the understandable concerns that they wouldn't be.

This brings up a bigger question, which is "why don't more of these cases end this way?" My argument would be because the legal consequences of sexually related crimes is too severe. It often has the effect of making the judge or jury uncomfortable levying that punishment in light of the specific facts of the case, and thus acquit the rapists to avoid destroying their life completely. It even probably dissuades many victims from levying accusations in the first place. If there were more graded punishments as their are in many other developed nations, we might find charges and convictions more common.

The registered sex offender thing is just one example. I remember that one case of a girl getting charged with distributing child pornography for sexting her boyfriend. Now she has to tell her neighbors she's a sex offender. It's all about politics, not justice.

Google Plus Authorship (Sift Talk Post)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon