>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Let's see.
Conservatives say tax cuts on the rich help the economy.
Yet, taxes on the rich have hardly ever been lower, the economy sucks.
Liberals say that the tax rate on the rich does not have a major impact on economic growth. Let's see who's right.
http://kemstone.com/Journal/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/marginalGrowth
.jpg
Oh, would you look at that! Back in the 1930s when tax rates on the wealthiest were 90% Yes, 90%! The growth rate averaged about the same as it does now, perhaps a little higher even. Rapid drops in the marginal tax rate did not have any appreciable impact on the economic growth rate.
Imagine that. The conservatives have been lying to everyone all these years. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that conservative politicians get most of their financial support from the wealthiest citizens?


You do know that government spending is counted in GDP right? That isn't "real" growth this chart is measuring, just money being spent...even if that money was government debt. They weren't building the job of the future in many cases. The argument for taxation shouldn't start at what makes the economy the best as the first argument, but what is the most fair. Why are people that have more money less entitled to it than those that have less, perhaps not even substantially less? Obviously, you don't need to add incentives to getting rich with low taxes, but taxes shouldn't be the means of social change but funding the affairs of government. Anything else is a moral argument which shouldn't be in the realm of governments to answer. What you view as "good" in economic growth, a environmental-minimalist sees as a rape of the natural world...who is right, more important, who are you to tell either one they are wrong?

It's from BBC's Natural World: Ant Attack. Amazing documentary.

Fair enough. I suppose I really ought to divide it into
knowledge (wisdom) - knowing things
intelligence - knowing how to figure out things
>> ^chtierna:

I'm sorry but I disagree with your definition of knowledge. What you seem to be describing is any process that accrues knowledge, such as science for example. Knowledge is the end product of applying that process to surroundings such as the natural world.
I do agree however that multiple-choice exams are kind of stupid but I had always thought it was to make the task of correcting 600 papers less daunting for the teacher. I've had to correct nearly 100 non-multiple-choice exams at a university level and it took a long time.
>> ^gwiz665:
I've not cheated in any exam either, but there's different levels of cheating too. Is copying some of your earlier work cheating too, for instance? I don't think so, if it's relevant.
When an "exam" is just a multiple choice form, it's stupid in any case - it means you have to know the answers, not know how to figure out the answers - this means you basically have to have a fact sheet in your head anyway, that doesn't teach you anything any way.
Knowledge is not knowing things, it's knowing how to figure out things.

I'm sorry but I disagree with your definition of knowledge. What you seem to be describing is any process that accrues knowledge, such as science for example. Knowledge is the end product of applying that process to surroundings such as the natural world.

I do agree however that multiple-choice exams are kind of stupid but I had always thought it was to make the task of correcting 600 papers less daunting for the teacher. I've had to correct nearly 100 non-multiple-choice exams at a university level and it took a long time.

>> ^gwiz665:

I've not cheated in any exam either, but there's different levels of cheating too. Is copying some of your earlier work cheating too, for instance? I don't think so, if it's relevant.
When an "exam" is just a multiple choice form, it's stupid in any case - it means you have to know the answers, not know how to figure out the answers - this means you basically have to have a fact sheet in your head anyway, that doesn't teach you anything any way.
Knowledge is not knowing things, it's knowing how to figure out things.

Myth:

1.

• a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
  
  
  • b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.

2.

• A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.

3.

• A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

4.

• A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).

Whether the change is voluntary or not doesn't affect the argument of whether religion can be a useful tool in helping us find happiness in our lives, so I fail to see the relevance.
Nor did I draw that conclusion from that argument. My point was that religion has been on a constant retreat in the battle against science and reason over truth claims about the world. Every battle has been fought with the intention of winning ground, and every battle has been lost by religion. "God" has been relegated back to more and more diffuse gaps in our knowledge. Later in my post I argue that the same is true for the moral wisdom contained in religion, it ought to be subject to the same beating as religions claims about the natural world has been, because I cant see religion excel in any area of moral wisdom.

Next, dismissing entire religions because of the actions of a few individuals is just illogical

Oh not this shit again. Nowhere in my post did I say so, and you know it. If you are referring to the comment about the Catholic child-rape, you fail to see my point completely. YOU claimed, and keep claiming, that religion is, or can be, a useful guide to leading a moral life, finding happiness and so on. Well, if what you say is true, institutions like the Catholic church ought to be beacons of light for the rest of us. Countries ruled by the likes of Taliban and the top clerics in Iran ought to be countries with the best possible human rights records, because after all, the laws they govern by are taken directly from the sources of wisdom themselves, our cherished holy books. Show me a society that has positively benefitted from adopting a more, not less, religious stance, and your claim might have some merit.

My point about bringing up the disgusting actions of the current leadership of the catholic church, is that obviously, religion hasn't helped at all. Perhaps it didn't make things worse either in this case, but we have to remember that its not ME who claims the catholic church is to be seen as a source of profound wisdom and morality, nor do I think adhering to catholic doctrine will help you make better moral decisions. it is the church itself who make these claims, and you, by saying things like "religion can be a useful tool in helping us find happiness in our lives"

Finally, you dismiss religious work because they were written by our ancestors.

Wrong again. I didn't dismiss it because it was written by our ancestors, I dismissed it because it quite obviously doesn't live up to the reputation you are trying to give it. But if it was truly, say, inspired by an eternal , real god, it really ought to live up to at least some degree. So when it doesn't... Why? Because it was manmade. made by people with flaws like you and me, and even worse, it was made thousands of years ago, by people who knew so little about the world they lived in. In a time where the world map was probably the size of maybe Israel and Egypt combined. And considering the circumstances they lived in, I dont blame them for being less then perfect, and much of what they wrote is certainly interesting, and stories like Genesis are fascinating insights into their minds and how they thought about the world. But as far as shedding light on the actual origin of our universe, it is as useless as Deuteronomy is in moral guidance.

And no, you shouldn't dismiss the constitution because it was written in the past, you should judge it like anything else on its actual contents and its track record.

@kceaton1 you seem to be implying that everything the hippies ever said was some sort of narrow, negative platform critical of the United States alone. You've got that exactly wrong.

It's a positive philosophy of promoting peace, love, understanding, sharing, and respect for the natural world and the dignity of mankind everywhere.

They were always talking about universal principles, not some issues they thought were unique to America.

As much as I like Zizek, his notions about ecology are bogus. They show a deep ignorance about biology and the natural world.

For instance, he asks us what kind of "unimaginable catastrophe" could have put petroleum in the deep strata of the earth. But petroleum is laid down precisely when there [i]aren't[/i] any catastrophes--nothing to disturb the layers of organic matter being deposited on the bed of the ocean or deep lake, no lava flows or the sediment collecting on top, no major earthquakes or other geological disturbances to break open the petroleum deposits and allow them to leak out, etc.

Nature [i]isn't[/i] just a series of catastrophes. Sure, they happen. But many species are so intricately interwoven with others through thousands of years of co-evolution that it's impossible to think that catastrophe conditions are the norm. And it is, indeed, human hubris that has caused so many devastating environmental problems today.

I had a serious illness a few years ago. The medical bill, if not insured (I did my homework out of intellectual curiousity), was $387,630. I'd like to see anyone not in the upper 8% of this nation's wealth afford this, WITHOUT going bankrupt. Yes, you STILL have to may the morgage on the house, and all the other expenses like cloths, food, gas, etc. Oh, and do this, when you dont have a job, because you were laid off, during a bad economy.

There's no way to do it. None.

Fortunately, I have and had, Mass Health (for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts), that paid for it. Yeah, I suffered on a level you will never know, nor understand, during that time period. You want to know what torture feels like? experience a year of what I went through. Anyone that has heard the tale and knows me, just is amazed at the horror ahd Hell I went through to get better (mostly).

I've come to understand the two sides of this: Republican and Democrat.

Republican: Do not want this, as its feared it will interfere with PROFIT. That's right, reduce the human equation down to numbers related to a substance that doesnt exist in the nature world: money. But then, I can not recall the last time I saw, heard, or witness a republican showing compassion for their fellow Americans, UNLESS, they themselves were also gaining from the act of compassion.

Democrats: Traditionally been the group that helps the workers out. Help pass structures and legal code that brought the worlding hours down in states from 60 to 40 hours a week. Put in a number of healthy life style provisions over the years. And now, they are doing something that benefits Americans for decades to come.

You can argue my words anyway you want. Republicans LIE to get what they want. They lied to get Bush in to office back in 2000. They lied on the energy crisis of 2003. They lied on Iraqq (no nuclear WMD, anyone?). They lied on Afghanistan. Some say they lied on 9/11. They lied on 'no nation building'. They lied for months on Health Care Reform. This video here, is simply showing, how often, and deeply, the lies go. We even have Winston above, showing us bold face lies.

You know Winston....

If you show up at the ER one night in catostophic pain, from an unknown source (be it a kidney stone, heart attack, etc). And the person there said "ok, you can access our hospital, but first, you must: A) Give us all your money B) Make yourself our slave, C) Give your body parts away for free. You WILL do so. Because, when someone is in that level of pain and suffering, they can not think straight, clearly, or consciously. Its a level of torture, someone like you, is unfamilar with. And yes, fortunately, the US hospitals (thanks to good legistation) prevent this sort of thing taking place. However, this sort of thing takes place outside of ER's every day in the US. You just choose not to see, hear, or witness it,

because....YOU....ARE....NOT....COMPASSIONATE....TO...YOUR....FELLOW....AMERICANS!

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
This is probably not going to make me many friends, but does our compassion as a species make us unnatural?



What does that even mean? How could anything we do "conflict with nature"? Did our capacity for compassion come from some rift in space-time, bestowed upon us by trans-dimensional higher beings? Hell, even that wouldn't actually be unnatural, because everything that exists is by definition part of the natural world.

>> ^Nithern:
If all things are natural, because they come, in some form, from the world around us. Would that mean Zombies are natural?


Forgive my lack of belief in the supernatural, or my ability to tell when a christian is being sarcastic or serious, but I'm unclear as to whether you're implying that zombies exist and are somehow unnatural, or that zombies only exist in fiction and are therefore unnatural.

Regardless, zombies, including christians' favorite zombie, jesus, don't exist. But if they did exist, they would be natural because they exist in the natural world. Also, they would be awesome.

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.

Because (dependent on your philosophy) it Is likely that things are infinatly devisable in complexity all scence can achive is to help make you more aware of things to have awe over, in no way can sceince damage awe.

Say I am in an expansive universe with little to no light , through science sumone could make a small light I can now see more to be at awe with than previously and would now have more to investigate and be excited about. over time through investigating the enviroment I would develop brighter and bigger lights allowing me to see more and more of my universe.

If you believe the universe is infinite , then over time progressive science would allow me to gain more and more awe , so if anything science creates Awe and is the single most significant and efficient methodology in developing technology to allow people to exsperance Awe.


I think what happens is people have a fallacy where they think of awe in the natureal world in the same way that thay think of awe with magic , Magic depends on a lack of information and misdirection to in effect Create Awe in places that Awe would not normally exsist (for a majority of people), I believe it is this contradiction that makes magic entertaining in the first place. but still it is not really an argument for people to be ignorant in order to exsperance awe, as you do not need ignorence inorder to exsperance awe in the natural world.


All that aside Awe is a subjective exsperance , and it is dependent on ones mental reflection of things rather than the stimulus itself , for one person a brick may contain as much awe as say the grand canoin , in actuality they are both made of matter and both objectively no more interesting than each other.

>> ^Fusionaut:
Pachelbel's Canon robs me of my will to live


there was a time when this song just ripped right through me and all I wanted to do was play it. For several days I did nothing but pour over the sheet music. I hadn't touched a piano since I was 9, but by the end of that week I could play the song through with my eyes closed. I has a power. I just wish they'd stop using it for rom-com wedding scenes. It's better than that. I want it played at my funeral, not my wedding.

Great clip thank you

The problem people have with this seems to be that humans are being more cruel to animals than nature is.

I've watched a lioness in the masai mara kill a zebra. I hope to the bottom of my heart that when I go it's more like these chicks at the hands of the nasty humans than like the zebra at the hands of the lion. Suffering? You haven't got a clue...

The thought that the natural world is somehow better, more caring or whatever you people think is just wrong. The natural world is pragmatic and practical, but not kind in the slightest. Lions hunt buffalo, but they're scared of the horns (as they should be). They deal with this by not dealing with the horns. They attack the rear of the buffalo until it can't stand any longer. Then they start to eat it. Not need to go near the head to kill it, it can't get you, just eat the hind legs first and work your way forwad. It dies after an hour or so of being eaten alive.

I personally don't eat meat produced this way. I think it can be done better, but I also think some people here need to get a sense of perspective. What is going on here is very, very natural. What vegans propose is very, very unnatural.