@NetRunner

How bout you just admit that "democrat" and "republican" are both bullshit titles that don't convey any real meaning.

Obama ordered the assassination of a U.S. Citizen WITHOUT A TRIAL OR CHARGES, even.

Doesn't that strike at the very core of all your democratic rule of law, Dems are marginally, if not unequivocally, better than Repubs malarkey?

You've already lost this disagreement.
When Obama failed to close Gitmo and expanded rendition, you lost.
When Obama continued and expanded warrant-less wiretapping, you lost.
When Obama extended the Trillion Bush Tax Cuts for the 1%, you lost.

The individuals who assume the title "Democrat" might have more liberal leaning mindsets, might have flexible acceptance of different groups, might have a more progressive focus for the future of their communities.

That doesn't change the fact that the system in which they work.. is rigged.
The outcome is predetermined.

Chris Hedges said it best. "There's no way to vote against the banks."

Bankers, speculators and usurers rule the modern world.

Their fiat currency, derivative trading, two-party election rigging world will be the only with any relevance as long as pig-monkeys like @NetRunner and @quantumushroom buy into their wholesale bullshit and let it be.

Cut free. Establish your own voluntary hive-mind. Occupy the Universe.
[there's enough space for all of us. trust me]

To me this video represents liberalism in society... which is why I want to see what QM says about this. Without liberalism running rampant through the 60's I feel many of these topics would still be taboo. Through liberalism I feel as though consciousness has expanded on many fronts. Although, don't tell that too a business man - they're not supposed to be empathetic with humans who are below them in the hierarchy.

It seems like this video has a couple of things going on. It wants to talk about the evolution of consciousness & how it relates to being bi-polar in our modern world. But, mental illness for the masses in America is just a drug war. "Buy these, don't buy those". It's largely a fabricated industry & consciousness is another story.

As far as I can see on the topic of evolved consciousness - many, many, many more people in liberal cities have evolved. But, I think the internet is a great device so I think if someone is interested in certain aspects of reality they too can evolve their consciousness & thought processes from the middle of no-where in Kansas; if they really care to or know to. I mean we're constantly expanding QM's consciousness - he just doesn't know it yet he's afraid of it!

I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was a teenager by a psychologist... but I may as well have been diagnosed bi-polar. I was pissed off at the world even though I had it all and was fairly sheltered... and that was the problem. It was too peaceful & I knew the world was out there waiting for me to find out the truth. So, I'm not exactly sure if we could say that my affliction was/is the symptom of post-modern evolution of consciousness but just an annoyance of mundane life tangled up with general anxiety.

I definitely think many people could benefit from "alternative medicine". I know it has a new agey bad wrap. I was prescribed both ritalin (legalized speed) & zoloft (what the hell is it? I don't know!) which are obviously fairly potent. I've experimented with herbal shit like 5-HTP which helps produce more serotonin and it works. It's not as potent but if someone doesn't have a serious mental illness it can work for short-term use and is great for people who would rather not turn into a zombie/robot.

As far as weed... I'm not sure if pot is the greatest thing for someone who is "bi-polar" or super depressed... mushies are great for positive consciousness just don't take em when you're feeling low, lol!

Either way, no one can be happy all of the time. We're human after all. Even though I hate the (human capitalist pig waste) fucking world - I am happy & people always tell me I'm super positive hahaha!! They can never know the truth!



As always...

There are two arguments Being made here.

1. The source of the video is from Asia.

:The video was made by a Japanese person with his/her own personal camera (according to the description of the original upload description), in their local habitat (possibly in Japan, judging from the Japanese TV show sounds at the end of the video).

vs

2. The content of the video has no relevance to Asian culture or environment.

:The image being shown on the video shows little to no representation of Asian culture. It may as well be a 40 year old cross-dressing clown's living room in middle of Indiana for all we know. There is barely any reference to Asian culture or of its characteristics except for the vague presence of Asian television in the background.

============================================================================

[The description of the *'Asia channel on VideoSift as of August/8/2011: "This channel is dedicated to the ancient cultures and traditions of Eastern Asia, particularly China and Japan, that began thousands of years ago and continue to this very day only slightly if at all affected by the modern world. It covers everything from period Shaolin martial arts videos in China to wacky reality Japanese shows of today."]


This is a video of a puppy being cute. I liked the video as a cute, catsanddogs video, that's why I upvoted it. There was some WTF-ness to the situation as well, but you're also stretching it a bit at this point. Putting this video in the Asia channel does not add anything to that channel's general content, because this video simply doesn't contain enough Asian characteristics.

In fact, this video is far more qualified to be in the 'music' channel than the Asia channel.

>> ^marbles:

@dgandhi
Maybe I was unclear. Your incoherent use of quotations has little to no context regarding the video.


Okay, one at a time then(again):

"objectivism" is a ref to the content, It is in quote because Rand's name for her ideology is a troll, and should not be taken seriously, it is relevant to the vid in that the vid describes an ideology indistinguishable from Rand's.

marxist axiom "labor has the right to all it produces" is a ref to the bit that starts at 1:45, that claims legitimacy on the same grounds as Marx, except that the basis of the claim is false, because nothing in the modern world is not already owned.

Objects existing in a "state of nature" is a necessarily prerequisite for the ability to own your work, that exactly matched the vids claim at 1:58, this is also quote for absurdity, not because it is a direct quote from the vid.

>> ^marbles:
False, and false. Liberty was a philosophy long before Rand, Marx, or Engels.

This video was not made pre-Marx. The basis for property rights made is indistinguishable from Marx, until the twist of it never being possible, and therefor not a coherent basis, is thrown in at the end.

>> ^marbles:

Your 3 quotes have no reference in the video.

I am not quoting the video at this point, I am referencing the video, there is a difference. I am also using reasonably clear names for positions the video creator takes, not typing out a transcript.

>> ^marbles:
Life is not arbitrary. Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits. Tangible items that we refer to as property are only representations of property.

You say this, but what do you mean?

I am alive, and I have the power to make choices and take actions, these are not rights they are facts.

Others have the power to act and make choices as well, this is simply a fact.

Sometimes people decide not to mess with each other, they form a society and grant each other contractual rights that serve their best interests as they understand them.

Fee simple property is one of these arrangements where a group of people agree to protect privileged access to some resource to particular people, this too is only a right by contract.

The Randian trick of trying to conflate the contract with the fact, and somehow make it universal and immutable, is cute in its naivete, but really has no basis in reality.

The entire self ownership argument is based on the premise that self directing entities can be owned, and therefor you must own yourself to stop anybody else from owning you. If we dispense with the whole idea of owning (because it's silly) or even just with the idea of owning people, there is no need to own yourself. You, and everybody else can just be un-owned, and un-ownable (but not un-pwnable). There you go, one great (and contrived) moral quandary averted, you're welcome.

>> ^marbles:
False. The quote from the video is “Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values, rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal”. The opposite suggests you give up your right to ANY opinion.


Okay fine, I disregard your silly property claims, and I will make use of all the things you claim to own whenever I wish, since I am perfectly within my rights to not be constrained by your threat to initiate force when I use these things.

Of course, we both know that's not what you, or the author, meant. You both mean that I have an obligation to accept your property arguments, that I can think whatever I want as long as I obey. Sorry, again, that does not seem to fit the general accepted definition of the word liberty in English.

@GenjiKilpatrick

Downvoted my comment before even hearing my explanation? Classy.

Anyone who thinks that the only reason religion still exists in the modern world is to explain the physical world around us is either grossly uninformed of the complex and well-documented web of sociological, psychological, economic, and political facets of religion or is grossly oversimplifying the situation. In either case "simpleton" would be an apt term to describe such a person.

God told them not to partake of the fruit or they would die. They knew it was wrong to disobey God and they knew the consequence would be death. They chose instead to believe satan over God, because they lusted after His power instead of trusting Him. They deserved their punishment.

Everyone knows right from wrong because everyone has a God given conscience that knows right from wrong. Murder isn't arbitrarily bad, it's absolutely bad, and everyone knows that. It's the same with stealing or any other sin.

>> ^SDGundamX:
There are two problems with that particular part of your quote. The first is that the God of the Bible seems to deal out unbelievably harsh punishments for the supposed sins that are committed. Oh, you ate a forbidden apple? Well now I'm going to cast you out into a world where you'll have to suffer the pains of hunger, death and childbirth! Nevermind that a snake talked Eve into taking the apple or that Eve tricked Adam into eating it. Nevermind that I never explained what was so bad about eating the fruit. All sins (and let's be clear, by "sin" we are really saying not doing what I told you to do) must be punished! Mercilessly! Regardless of the circumstances!
That isn't love--that's megalomaniac and tyrannic authoritarianism.
The second problem I have with that statement is that it's just such an archaic worldview--that people won't do bad things because they fear the impassive, unyielding punishment they will receive if they are caught. Maybe 4000 years ago, in a world where the strongest grabbed power and arbitrarily made the rules for all the others, that kind of worldview made sense but not anymore. Most people living in a modern society like the U.S. or Japan don't steal. That's not because the law or some deity says we can't--it's because we have enough reasoning abilities to work out how it would feel if someone stole from us, what kind of effect it would have on society if everyone stole from everyone else, and so forth.
Those people who don't figure these things out for themselves and decide to steal do need to learn there are consequences for their actions (by being arrested and sent to jail) but the punishment often has very little effect on changing their future behavior. Why? Because punishment alone is not very effective at changing people's behavior. Instead of learning to not engage in that behavior, people learn how to get better at not getting caught in the first place.
Reasoning with people(something the God of the Bible very rarely seems to do) and rewarding positive behaviors, in addition to holding people accountable for their actions, has been shown to be a great way to get people to change. One of the tragedies of our modern world is that the criminal justice system, much like the Biblical God apparently, is much more concerned with meting out punishment than in actually trying to reform people.
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not that God wants to punish you, it's that no sin will go unpunished.

There are two problems with that particular part of your quote. The first is that the God of the Bible seems to deal out unbelievably harsh punishments for the supposed sins that are committed. Oh, you ate a forbidden apple? Well now I'm going to cast you out into a world where you'll have to suffer the pains of hunger, death and childbirth! Nevermind that a snake talked Eve into taking the apple or that Eve tricked Adam into eating it. Nevermind that I never explained what was so bad about eating the fruit. All sins (and let's be clear, by "sin" we are really saying not doing what I told you to do) must be punished! Mercilessly! Regardless of the circumstances!

That isn't love--that's megalomaniac and tyrannic authoritarianism.

The second problem I have with that statement is that it's just such an archaic worldview--that people won't do bad things because they fear the impassive, unyielding punishment they will receive if they are caught. Maybe 4000 years ago, in a world where the strongest grabbed power and arbitrarily made the rules for all the others, that kind of worldview made sense but not anymore. Most people living in a modern society like the U.S. or Japan don't steal. That's not because the law or some deity says we can't--it's because we have enough reasoning abilities to work out how it would feel if someone stole from us, what kind of effect it would have on society if everyone stole from everyone else, and so forth.

Those people who don't figure these things out for themselves and decide to steal do need to learn there are consequences for their actions (by being arrested and sent to jail) but the punishment often has very little effect on changing their future behavior. Why? Because punishment alone is not very effective at changing people's behavior. Instead of learning to not engage in that behavior, people learn how to get better at not getting caught in the first place.

Reasoning with people(something the God of the Bible very rarely seems to do) and rewarding positive behaviors, in addition to holding people accountable for their actions, has been shown to be a great way to get people to change. One of the tragedies of our modern world is that the criminal justice system, much like the Biblical God apparently, is much more concerned with meting out punishment than in actually trying to reform people.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's not that God wants to punish you, it's that no sin will go unpunished.

Indeed.

And they still get to reap all the benefits! I say we throw the religiolites out of the modern world and let them come up with their own scientific advances and stop mooching on us. In return, we won't benefit from their prayers anymore either. I think it's a fair trade.

Jefferson was a gentleman, a scholar and a deep thinker.

He would be appalled by you, not me. He would be appalled at the mountain being made out of this molehill, when there are true mountains to be tackled.

Not that either of us really can speak for the man.


>> ^cosmovitelli:

So what about the uneducated British troops sent to put down the illegal colonial rebellion over, as you put it "expensive tea"? Blue collar hardworking guys right? Should have just bent over and taken it because they had badges?
It is bad luck for them, as for the British soldiers, that those whose will they have pledged to violently enforce make tyrannical and demented proclamations. But the most elementary understanding of Jefferson, and the fundamental basis for the US constitution, absolutely precludes meek subservience to tyranny.
A few more gutless masochists like you in Boston and you would be singing God save the Queen, and crowing about how great the staus Quo is. Or whatever mental contortions you had to perform to avoid growing a pair.
As for causing a disrespectful commotion at the memorial to a father of free expression, are you really blaming people silently jigging over people violently attacking others??
No offense but if you'd spouted that shit to Jefferson he'd have knocked you the fuck out.
>> ^bareboards2:
This is the very definition of dehumanization. To tell a hardworking blue collar worker that they are a tool of the state, instead of recognizing that they are understandably pissed off at a bunch of folks who aren't following specific directions?
There is a vid on the sift interviewing cannibals on how they justified eating a fellow human being.
This is the modern world equivalent of that cannibal saying the sorcerer wasn't human, so it was okay to kill and eat him.

So what about the uneducated British troops sent to put down the illegal colonial rebellion over, as you put it "expensive tea"? Blue collar hardworking guys right? Should have just bent over and taken it because they had badges?

It is bad luck for them, as for the British soldiers, that those whose will they have pledged to violently enforce make tyrannical and demented proclamations. But the most elementary understanding of Jefferson, and the fundamental basis for the US constitution, absolutely precludes meek subservience to tyranny.

A few more gutless masochists like you in Boston and you would be singing God save the Queen, and crowing about how great the staus Quo is. Or whatever mental contortions you had to perform to avoid growing a pair.

As for causing a disrespectful commotion at the memorial to a father of free expression, are you really blaming people silently jigging over people violently attacking others??

No offense but if you'd spouted that shit to Jefferson he'd have knocked you the fuck out.

>> ^bareboards2:

This is the very definition of dehumanization. To tell a hardworking blue collar worker that they are a tool of the state, instead of recognizing that they are understandably pissed off at a bunch of folks who aren't following specific directions?
There is a vid on the sift interviewing cannibals on how they justified eating a fellow human being.
This is the modern world equivalent of that cannibal saying the sorcerer wasn't human, so it was okay to kill and eat him.

This is the very definition of dehumanization. To tell a hardworking blue collar worker that they are a tool of the state, instead of recognizing that they are understandably pissed off at a bunch of folks who aren't following specific directions?

There is a vid on the sift interviewing cannibals on how they justified eating a fellow human being.

This is the modern world equivalent of that cannibal saying the sorcerer wasn't human, so it was okay to kill and eat him.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^bareboards2:

I also find it interesting that the cops and the protestors are actually both doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. They feel disrespected and they respond. Everybody is human, hows about that?

One is a state security operative sanctioned to use violence to enforce the will of the powerful. The other is a free citizen with a duty to assert their rights at all times and especially when they are threatened (according to Jefferson and a few other people who 'mouthed off' in the Constitution).
Lets just agree that Jefferson would have been profoundly on the side of the protesters but people no longer give a shit what he thought.
SHUT UP!! SHUT UP OR I'LL SMASH YOUR FACE!!

>> ^westy:

its funny how the enemy of freedom and better countries in the modern world is not external forces and nations. Its dumb fucks within countries that don't educate them-selfs and don't know history and don't have basic resoining skills.
always seems to be that the most patriotic people are the most stupid and in realty have the most detrimental effect on the building of a good nation.


I agree westy, except that I think it's the people who are the most outspoken about their OWN patriotism that you have to worry about.

its funny how the enemy of freedom and better countries in the modern world is not external forces and nations. Its dumb fucks within countries that don't educate them-selfs and don't know history and don't have basic resoining skills.

always seems to be that the most patriotic people are the most stupid and in realty have the most detrimental effect on the building of a good nation.

Frankly the oil companies have us by the balls because we pulled down our shorts and plopped them right into their hands. They have tons of money and control the resource that makes the modern world function. Anyway we chose to fight back, getting rid of subsidize, hiking taxes on them and/or taking away tax loopholes and we're the one who are going to feel the squeeze long before them. If we ever want to wrestle control of the world from them we're going to have to endure the pain.

@blankfist - If I have erred in the way I have posted, I apologize. This is a topic I have seen sprout up across a wide variety of comment threads and sift talk posts, so I wanted to get my thoughts down. If there is a more appropriate way of posting this, please let me know how to do that. I mostly post in video comments, and am not very familiar with sift talk protocol. I'd very much like to hear people's thoughts on what I've written, since it seems to not be the way most opponents view the debate.

@gwiz665 - I thought I made it pretty clear. Stay and accept things, stay and try to change things, leave, or leave and try to change things from afar so that you will be more likely to return. Just because you are born in a given place doesn't mean you are stuck there. The alternative to this way of thinking is to believe that you should be excused from the rules that everybody else is following because you were born there, which doesn't make any sense to me.

@blankfist - That was very well articulated, thanks. I'm speaking about the modern world in western countries, where anybody can emigrate at any time (assuming they have paid for services rendered). I am adamantly opposed to any society who seeks to prevent people from leaving unwanted conditions. If you have anything to add (aside from insults and unsupported bias) I'd love to hear it.