search results matching tag: Interpretation

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (404)     Sift Talk (31)     Blogs (25)     Comments (1000)   

China bankrolling Biden Center at UPenn

Drachen_Jager says...

Your guy and his cronies literally quote Nazi propaganda, openly support Nazis, openly support and laud dictators while denigrating democracies and democratic process both within the US and in other countries. At the same time a concerted effort has been in effect the past years to stack the courts and public service so heavily with blindly subservient ideologues to the point where laws and the constitution often have no bearing on judicial decisions any more if they impact the president or his allies.

In short, Trump has been engaging in one of the most transparently dictatorial power grabs of the twentieth and twenty-first century.

And you're worried about a report from a news agency known for inaccurate and biased reporting that maybe his opponent might have been involved in something shady (but without any actual evidence to back up their claims)? I mean it's not like Biden personally sees that money. China gives a shitload of money to US universities in general. If you want to connect the dots there, go look at Harvard, they receive a billion dollars a year from China, and yet you'd rather trace a few million because they happened to go to a school with Biden's name on it. Great detective work, Mr. Magoo!

If Trump came out in public tomorrow with a toothbrush mustache and a Nazi armband you'd still support him, wouldn't you?

If it walks like a Nazi, quacks like a Nazi, and supports Nazis, it is a Nazi.

I hope you can fill in the blanks, @bobknight33

I hope it's just that you just don't realize what you've become and you still somehow believe you're doing "the right thing", but honestly your lack of any semblance of integrity strains that perception. The alternatives, that you're intelligent and fully aware of what you're doing, or you're a propagandist for a foreign power who is merely acting in support of his own nation's goals are the less kind (but sadly more likely) interpretations.

What Was Happening Before the Big Bang?

MonkeySpank says...

You should check out PBS Space Time on YouTube then

I love Brian; he is a pillar of the physics community. However, in the interest of time, he only got into Hawkin's shuttlecock interpretation.

There are others such Paul Steinhardt Eternal Inflation, and the universe being born out of black/white hole as described in the Penrose diagrams.

General relativity math is solid, but no one really knows how to interpret the singularity (if there is such a thing).

lucky760 said:

Totally agree.

This is extremely fascinating.

*quality

Why The Right Wing End Game Is Armageddon

newtboy says...

That depends on which bible you mean....there are many.

Really? Lost to history?! Hardly....lost to the ignorant and uneducated maybe, but even atheists like me know full well Jesus the man was a Jew, and definitely not a European or "white". Roman/Italian artists knew this, but worked for a Roman church so portrayed him in their image.

Genetic purity?! Lol. I guess that means no one has EVER become Jewish, you're either born one by two pure Jewish parents or not. Hardly reality, and would reject nearly every person in Israel (or elsewhere). Just because there is a long standing religious/cultural taboo against marriage outside the culture, it still happens, as does conversion. Racial/genetic purity is a fallacy debunked by genetic testing.

Prophecy is a leap. No prophecy has been correctly interpreted until AFTER the events supposedly prophesied occurred. It's ridiculous to go back after the fact and claim "see, now that I know exactly how to interpret the unclear prophecy I couldn't decipher before, it's a 100% perfect prediction" but never be able to predict the future. That's the same nonsensical logic mediums use.

The second temple was also the third, since the true second temple was originally a rather modest structure constructed by a number of Jewish exile groups returning to the Levant from Babylon under the Achaemenid-appointed governor Zerubbabel. However, during the reign of Herod the Great, the Second Temple was completely refurbished, and the original structure was totally overhauled into the large and magnificent edifices and facades that are more recognizable. Logically, the third temple was the one destroyed by Romans, the second replaced by Herod but the new one was still called the second temple anyway. (To avoid contradicting prophecy? ;-) )

If the dome of the rock, the second most holy place in Islam, is destroyed, expect Jerusalem to follow soon after, as that will definitely start a religious war between nuclear powers.

Herodotus is credited with using the term Palestinian first, in the 5th century BCE as an ethnonym, making no distinction between Arabs, Jews, or other cultures inhabiting of the area. Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term then came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.

I think you are confused about the history, here's a primer...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel

The area was populated by various people's including Jews until the Jewish–Roman wars of 66–136 CE, during which the Romans expelled most of the Jews from the area (well, really they arguably left voluntarily because they refused to be second class citizens barred from practicing their religion freely) and replaced it with the Roman province of Syria Palaestina, the Arabs were already there, not invaders or immigrants. When Assyrians (Mesopotamians) invaded in circa 722 BCE, they ruled empirically, meaning only the Jewish ruling elite left, returning in 538 BCE under Cyrus the Great....so no, the Arabs didn't just settle after the Jews were dispersed.

It's patently ridiculous to say the Arab nations were unprovoked, Jewish illegal immigration led to a hostile takeover of the region by illegal immigrants with rapid expansion of their territories into their neighbors continuing through today. The Jews defeated the Arabs thanks to American backing and exponentially better hardware. It was only their right if might makes right, and the Arab nations are under no obligation to let them keep what they stole any more than the Jews were obligated to let the Arab nations retain control in the first place. If Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any combination can take it, by your logic they have every right to do so.

I do agree, in the end there will be more conflict until the area becomes uninhabitable....largely because every religion's prophecies end with them in control, and no one wants to admit it's all nonsensical iron age tribalism at work.

Cider

Sagemind says...

I see the gay vibe you're picking up, but to me it's a Macho vs. Not vibe. (quirky, even).
A guy feeling like he's not measuring up against the typical model looking guy.

Not feeling the Korean Spy part though lol. But that's why we all have our own interpretations and imaginations.

Back-To-School Essentials | Sandy Hook Promise

newtboy says...

At best that leaves only the rare pre 1986 automatics already in private hands, only in some states (totally illegal under any circumstances in many other states), only if you can first pass an expensive background check more stringent than the one federal agents must pass. Sounds like some serious regulation to me.

What you, me, or others consider firearms means nothing. I gave you the law as written, it includes those, they are illegal, so there are effective regulations on firearms already....that doesn't mean they're sufficient. Those words are different words, that's why they're spelled and pronounced differently. Speed limits are effective laws, but not sufficient to regulate vehicle use.

Why do so many firearms lovers fear being on a registry? I've always found that insane, like every other purchase you make isn't tracked or something. There's no purchase privacy anymore, for anything.

It doesn't take any money to ban certain firearms, certainly not a boatload, and not the ocean of cash health care costs. That's a red herring. All it takes is for representatives to vote the way their constituents want them to by 98%.
Perhaps in that sense it would take money, because in order to get them to vote as the people want, campaign finance reform is necessary, and that will cost money, but it's the best thing our country could possibly spend money on.

I support a slightly modified second amendment and universal health care. My interpretation allows for regulations, registration, universal background checks even for family transfers, bans of certain types, seizure from violent convicts and mental patients (impossible without a registry, btw), etc. Yes, I understand that's not how the constitution is written today, but the constitution is a living document. In California, we have most of that as state law already, including an outright ban on fully or selectively automatic weapons.

Btw, you suggest....Try to make people feel welcome.
I was responding in kind to your off hand assumption that, without your derisive "warning", he would be "dumb" enough to make an assumption about you. Then you go on to say making assumptions is dumb. Care to rethink? Had you been more thoughtful and less derisive in making that point I likely would have ignored the hypocrisy.

harlequinn said:

Machine guns are firearms. You can buy pre 1986 machine guns in the USA (I'm not sure what form you have to fill out). The 1986 cutoff is fairly pointless.

I don't consider bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc. firearms. To me a firearm is essentially a rifle that fires cartridges. But if the US government considers them as firearms then that is what they are for legislative purposes.

I believe there is case law regarding what scope of arms they were referring to in the 2A and the result was any common firearm. This currently includes almost all pistols and rifles, both automatic and semi-automatic (with the exception being automatic guns must have been made before 1986 - I believe this limit should be removed).

I'm very much against restricting semi-automatic rifles. There are no good reasons for restricting them. It is unconstitutional. They are not the "weapon of choice" for mass shootings, pistols are. The lethality of them in mass shootings is the same as that of pistols (someone ran an analysis just recently). This last point surprised me a little.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/d7ypcv/no_mass_shootings_carried_out_with_semiautomatic/

I'm for background checks (i.e. for second hand sales which are the only sales left without a background check) as long as the service is cheap and no records are kept (i.e. it isn't used to create a de-facto registration database).

Public health wise, talking about firearms is a red herring. If I were to drop a bucket load of money into stuff in the USA it would be into making health care and mental health care cheap and available and reducing poverty. This would have more affect on mortality and morbidity rates then any gun legislation will. And yes, I would give fully subsidized health care to the poor.

By now you should be asking yourself what planet someone comes from where they support the 2A and free health care at the same time.

Back-To-School Essentials | Sandy Hook Promise

wtfcaniuse says...

I'm not interpreting "this" incorrectly.
I'm also not talking about state or municipal regulation.

I'm talking about federal regulation of arms that was enacted without having to change the constitution.

BTW if you want people to be polite and welcoming you might want to be polite yourself and avoid insulting people who haven't mentioned you, your opinions or your stance on gun control.

harlequinn said:

You are interpreting this incorrectly.

If you think they have "effective regulation" then there is nothing to talk about really - people who want effective regulation already have it.

A few states have quite frankly unconstitutional firearms regulations. Sooner or later they'll get challenged in the Supreme court and knocked down but it takes many years and a lot of money.

Back-To-School Essentials | Sandy Hook Promise

harlequinn says...

You are interpreting this incorrectly.

If you think they have "effective regulation" then there is nothing to talk about really - people who want effective regulation already have it.

A few states have quite frankly unconstitutional firearms regulations. Sooner or later they'll get challenged in the Supreme court and knocked down but it takes many years and a lot of money.

wtfcaniuse said:

Except for the times where they have regulated arms without having to change the 2nd amendment.

Back-To-School Essentials | Sandy Hook Promise

harlequinn says...

"The modern interpretation".

Which brings it in line with the original intention of the document. I.e. the people are the militia and they have a right to bear arms.

"I can't imagine that Franklin would have expected that children should go to elementary school in fear of being murdered by their classmates either."

I'm glad you can't imagine it, because statistically it's occurrence is almost zero. They should fear this no more than fearing being eaten by a shark, struck by lighting, or killed in a plane crash.

"with a few lobby organizations like the NRA"
Why are you including the NRA? At the last presidential election they didn't even make the top 50 contributors.

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-big

Does this change your assessment?

notarobot said:

The word "militia" comes up time and time again in those founding documents. That the citizens should have access to arms as party of "a well regulated militia."

The modern interpretation of the second amendment has done away with the idea that a citizen ought to be a part of an organized militia to bear arms.

The founders of the US said other things too:

“A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”

I imagine that Franklin thought the republic would need defending against other monarchies, not from large corporations who, after centuries of wealth concentration would, with a few lobby organizations like the NRA, become the de-facto unelected rulers of the land.

I can't imagine that Franklin would have expected that children should go to elementary school in fear of being murdered by their classmates either.

Back-To-School Essentials | Sandy Hook Promise

notarobot says...

The word "militia" comes up time and time again in those founding documents. That the citizens should have access to arms as party of "a well regulated militia."

The modern interpretation of the second amendment has done away with the idea that a citizen ought to be a part of an organized militia to bear arms.

The founders of the US said other things too:

“A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”

I imagine that Franklin thought the republic would need defending against other monarchies, not from large corporations who, after centuries of wealth concentration would, with a few lobby organizations like the NRA, become the de-facto unelected rulers of the land.

I can't imagine that Franklin would have expected that children should go to elementary school in fear of being murdered by their classmates either.

harlequinn said:

The founders of the USA foresaw this sort of issue and wrote an extremely strong constitution preventing government from effectively regulating arms.

Back-To-School Essentials | Sandy Hook Promise

cloudballoon jokingly says...

I have another POV. Holding the 2nd amendment sacred (by that I mean misreading/falsely interpreting it like all the "you can take my guns away from my cold dead hands" people) and take it to its ideological extreme, then may I advocate free access to grenades, bombs and rockets? Personal ownership of fighter jets, war machines and shit?

By the way, why the heck does USA not allowing Iran/N. Korea to R&D and make their nuclear arsenals already!? Hypocrite much? Any country wanting nuclear bombs is holding their freedom sacred! Freedom for one and all, freedom FTW! Woohoo, yeeehaw!

I'ma right? I'ma RIGHT?

Madness.

The Black Community Destroys Trumps Racism In One Video

moonsammy says...

Gotta love that cognitive dissonance. "If you don't like America, leave!" "Make America Great Again!" These views are directly contradictory, plus who the fuck has said they don't like America? It's a pretty huge logical leap to interpret "Trump's a racist / idiot / Russian asset" as "I hate America."

Also, the whole "go back where you came from" is straight-up inarguably racist when it's only ever directed at non-white people. It's extra racist when they're already living in the country they were born in. Sorry various non-white men in this video, but you saying Trump isn't racist doesn't magically erase all of the racist shit which has come out of his mouth / twitter.

Jim Says Christian Leaders Will Be Murdered If Trump Loses

newtboy says...

But, without exception, that is EXACTLY what religions teach, that only those who believe correctly are correct and thus deserving of the supernatural rewards. It's how they excuse proselytizing, often with force. Can you name a real religion that says "we are the proper way to God, but other ways are just as valid."? (And I don't count individuals stating that, only the written texts that codify the beliefs).

Yes, we do treat those other people with disdain, those of us who don't buy into one or more flock that is.

They can't see through the hypocrisy and idiocy because religion/churches demand you not question your religious leaders, absolutely do not think for yourself. Don't try to interpret your dogma for yourself. Doing that leads directly to excommunication or much worse.

None of this is exclusive to Christianity, but in European/American culture it is most prevalent there.

Side question: What good has religion done that could not have been done better without it? Be specific please, with examples.

cloudballoon said:

.

We need to eliminate sheeple mentality, religious absolutism and self-righteousness that disrespect others, that thinks one is better than others because of following a religion.

I'm fine calling out the ridiculous among them, I do so in my church. Just don't call and treat everyone a sheeple. Besides, sheeple is not exclusive to religion, there are Apple sheeple, celebrity sheeple, political sheeple. Do we treat all of these people as sheeple with disdain?

But man... it's extremely disheartening to see the state of religion in the USA. I can see why some people are so against it there. I seriously can't feel defensive about it if I'm a US citizen, because watching videos like these do make sensible people wanting to punch that guy. But how can people NOT see through the idiocy and out right ban/disown that shit? That's the most concerning to me of American Christianity.

Sheriff Caught On Bodycam Telling Deputies To Lie

kEnder says...

Watched 3:59 and interpreted that differently. Debatable whether the officer intended to lie or knew the camera was on. I'm happy that officer refused to compromise the truth.

I'm with you there on the worthless off switches, let's hope information changes our world for the good.

newtboy said:

"It bears noting that EVERY cop went along with this lie"
<snip>
"until they realized on scene that the instruction to lie had been recorded."
<snip>
"Body cameras with on off switches are worthless for the public, whenever there's something they want to hide cops just claim it was off...trust them.

A Hard Question For Religion

shinyblurry says...

John 3:3

Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God

Since the time of Christ these things have been well understood. Doctrinally what I am saying has always been orthodox Christianity, not part of the interpretation of a particular sect or denomination.


The one and done theology you're talking about is true in this sense; the true believers will make it whereas the false converts will not. The false converts will always fall away and the true converts will always make it. That's the proof of who is true and who is false. This is why Jesus said let the wheat and tares grow together.

newtboy said:

THE test? Hardly. That's not even the only test for your small sect.
If you've been saved, "born again" then sin again, or question dogma or your own belief, you have to do it all over again....according to your particular group's belief...right? It's not a one and done thing, it's a constant subjugation and supplication, incessant adoration by the congregation, suffering degradation without protestation.

What happens when one side has been saved and doesn't change but the other side no longer believes after surgery?

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

siftbot says...

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

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 373 Badge!



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