Let's do that. The one point of agreement I have with this guy is we need to declutter the conversation. Entities like money, governments, corporations etc don't exist. There is only the fact of our material circumstances.

One point I found somewhat hypocritical was his take on policymakers. He says we should blame them when he openly admits they are all bought. In my mind, this is effectively voluntary purchase of the initiation of force. If nobody paid, politicians would have nothing to sell. Inevitably all force is initiated by the highest bidder. Wealth itself is power, and power wouldn't be so named if it didn't imply force.

As you've already pointed out in another thread everything we see, all of our material circumstances, were originally appropriated by conquest (the initiation of force). Thus, initial material circumstances were not morally obtained. Since material wealth begets a trade advantage this initial windfall is likely to entrench your power. For this reason all material gains are suspect.

For these reasons I view wealth itself as immoral. There is a reason Robin Hood has such high standing, and it is not because he robs from the state and gives to the private sector. It's not because he doesn't initiate force. It's because he redistributes ill-gotten gains by whatever means necessary.

Pacifism is selfish.

I'm not sure if you actually disagree or just misunderstand. I have no issue with fantasy, except when it's put in place of reality. I enjoyed LOTR and Hobbit, and I even want to see Pacific Rim (although I must admit I'm embarrassed about it). When fantasy replaces history, history is lost.
When you tell a story that's historical in nature, I (and many others) feel you have an obligation to your audience to teach them the actual history, not to bastardize and fictionalize it with fantasy and Neo. I'm sorry if you feel that way of thinking makes me a jerk, it wasn't what I was going for. I feel it makes me an adult that is unapologetic about being interested in amazing history more than flashy fantasy.
My point about Lincoln has been ignored or misunderstood...would you have liked to see him fight a confederate dragon? Would that have added to, or detracted from the compelling adult story being told? Was Lincoln Vampire Hunter as good a movie as Lincoln in any way? Did the addition of Vampires help you understand the person or time period, or would it have confused you about the historical facts if you knew nothing about the subject(s)?
I understand 300 was not meant to be historical, but it has the same issues with adding fantasy and drama to a well known, historical story. This is a big pet peeve of mine, as I feel most people have a tenuous grasp of history at best, and are not served by being told about historical events in a clearly non-historical, unreal, dramatized, and fantasized manner. It is especially egregious when there is no historical version to point to (in English at least, there is Chushingura in Japanese) when discussing the subject. I read mostly science fiction, and I read both 300 and The Gates of Fire, and while I loved 300, I wish the latter had been made first. I have read many versions of 47 Ronin, and none of them had a dragon or any unrealistic fantasy. Any of them would have made a great action packed adult movie with many lessons to teach rather than just a fun few hours watching Neo save the Asians. To me, adding the fantasy is tantamount to saying the story isn't compelling enough without embellishment, and this one certainly is. To me, it's the same as exaggeration, it's like admitting reality isn't good (or bad) enough to make the point in your argument. Pure fantasy is exempt from this issue.
P.S. sorry for the essay.

And disagreement is cool with me, I often disagree with people who like musicals but I can do so without being a jerk about it, I'm just not into them. An active imagination is often considered a sign of intelligence and higher thinking. I'm pretty sure creative minds like Neil Gaiman, Stephen King, Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov, just to name a few, are not lacking in the intelligence or comprehension departments. Gene Roddenberry could be responsible for god knows how many people going into the sciences, inspired to make the future, he imagined a reality.
Lincoln was great movie and I'd be all for seeing a movie based on the 47 Ronin that was more historically accurate, but that doesn't mean I can't also enjoy movies like Pacific Rim. As for 300, the movie was actually based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, which I doubt was ever intended to be a factual account of the event anyhow. Movies like this one are, for better or worse a product of market forces and the society we live in.

That was pretty amazing.

@tomspeed Hawaii is a lot like that as well. It's especially valuable there since something like 90% of hawaiian inhabitants aren't of hawaiian descent (a mix of American, Asian and South-Pacific Islanders), but their culture is kept alive by tradition and respect for their history.
I love culture. I have to go research this now because I don't know anything about it, but I should would have appreciated it if it were part of my youth.

It's the same actress with the same voice filter playing an AI who isn't GlaDOS.

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/01/05/del-toro-got-valves-permission-to-use-glados-voice-in-pacific/

Debate, yay! Let's take this in order:

@00Scud00 You don't actually disagree with me it seems. Christian fundamentalism is (almost) as dangerous as Islam fundamentalism imo, with the tiny caveat that Jesus' message was mostly pacific passive-aggressive, à la "be nice to everyone here, me and Dad will torture our enemies in the afterlife", whereas Muhammed's was very much "death to the infidel, by our hand and/or God's" (e.g. s2:191-3; s4:89; 5:33; 9:52, etc). As for nation-building, it is more rooted in Islam - if only by virtue of being what their holiest figure did, contrary to the "kingdom-of-heaven-is-not-on-earth" Jesus (of course, Christianity's inherent One Truth totalitarianism is, as history shows, a perfect backup ideology for colonizing and war-weilding as well.
Of course people growing up with Islam will, for the most part, adhere to the good and ignore (sadly, instead of revolting against) the evil, just like with any other religion. That does not change the inherent wrongness and dangerousness of the ideology itself.
"You're condemning an entire belief system and billions of Muslims based on a statistically small group of whackjobs, doesn't sound very scientific to me. the comparatively greater (observable and quantifiable) numbers of threats/acts of violence done in the name of Islam than those in the name of other religious ideologies in this point in history " FTFClarity. If I mention >100'000person-riots demanding the deaths of atheist bloggers, which religious beliefs are most likely to be at the source there? Proportionally, which religious beliefs have, today, the most negative effects on women? Which population of ex-"religion" is most likely to receive death threats and/or be killed for religious reasons? I could go on, but I think the point is made that, proportionally, Islam is the greatest cause of religious-fueled harm today.

@Yogi, apples and oranges dear, not to mention your very narrow definition of Islam's toll (the sunnis bombed by chiites and vice-versa, and all the honour-killing victims, to name only a couple, would not agree with you). The US-wrought massacres in the ME are unforgiveable, no doubt about it, but most of the excuses made to justify it were secular, not religious. Fundamentalist Islam is above all a threat to its immediate neighbours (usually other muslims). Islamist terrorism is only one aspect of the ideology's dangers, and takes its greatest toll in Africa and the ME. Counting only US victims is terribly self-centered.

@SDGundamX Hello old debate-buddy; I will freely admit that I do not want to spend days and days compiling exact numbers of "victims of Islam" vs "victims of other religions", and I think it is rather a dismissive tactic to demand such data. That is why I formulated the question differently in the response above to 00Scud00: take a look at the state of the world, and simply compare. Does this paint all of Islam in a broad brush? You think it does, I do not. I do not find it contradictory to accept the wide variety of "Islams" and Islamic practices/interpretations while arguing that the core fundamentals of Islam, i.e. the founding texts and exemplary figures, can and sadly often do lead to or are invoked to motivate violence and unethical behaviour, and that at this point in history it is the one that does so the most. I do not imply that there is "one" practice of Islam, that is you projecting. There are, however, a set of texts at the core of Islam, and with it a set of beliefs (as you yourself point out).
There is a reason why "moderate" Christians, Muslims, etc. are called "moderate": they only "moderately" adhere to that core. And yes, Muslims disagree with eachother about how to live/interpret that core, and sometimes (like the Christians and Jews etc. before them) kill eachother over their disagreements.

Is there good stuff to be found in those fundamentals? Yes, of course, but they are basics of human empathy and animal morality, and do not require holy validation (this applies for all religious fundamentals of course).

You and many others seem to be unable to dissociate "hating an ideology" from "hating every individual who adheres to it, no matter to what degree". It is noteworthy that the people who accuse others of painting Islam/Muslims "with one broad stroke" are often guilty of implying exactly that when they make that accusation: "you express dislike of Islam and/or the acts of certain Muslims, ergo you can only be expressing dislike for all of them, because one=all!"

As for equating Islam with danger, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is to equate Muslim people with danger, and yes, there is a huge difference, one that people like myself think so obvious as to not have to spell it out until opposing voices accuse us of not making that difference, often because they themselves cannot. When the fundamentals say "believing something other than Islam is worse than murder" and "kill the non-believer", it is a dangerous ideology. Thankfully we know that the majority of individuals will eschew that part of the fundamentals, gaining the "moderate" achievement. This does not diminish the danger inherent in the fundamentals.

@Babymech It is not ignorant to say that Chechens have been bombed, massacred, and isolated, and are poor as all get-out. It is ignorant to suggest that these are the only possible reasons a culture might have violent strains running through it, and that one should by all means not look towards the beliefs that explicitly command killing people who don't believe what you do. Moreover, my history is pretty rusty, but of all the many places and peoples the US has bombed and massacred, I don't remember Chechnya being among them. The Boston bombing may have been political in nature, but suggesting that it can only be so and cannot have religious motivations is simplistic and counter to, well, reality.

I "got" it, except not in exactly the way you meant. Here's how I qualified:

1. I'm the right age -- 1981. *edit* ahh, the commercial is from 1981. So nope, I probably wasn't comprehending TV beer commercials just yet.
2. Nope, Kansas.
3. Nope.
4. While watching the video, I remembered my college Geology 101 "Rocks for Jocks" class and learning abouthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artesian_aquifer>artesian aquifers. Kansas has conditions that are good for those in some locations due to water in our local aquifer system flowing down from the Rockies (all subterranean, but still down). I'm betting that isn't what you were referring to?
5. Is the joke that Olympia Brewing used an artesian well, and he plays it like "Artesian" sounds like a nationality or ethnic group? Or is it a Pacific Northwest region/group? Wikipedia disambiguation refers to an Artesian South Dakota, but I don't think that's it.

Anyway, I've honestly enjoyed this little snipe hunt I embarked on due to your comment mentioning "artesian" which was my first thought when watching the video, but now I'm coming up empty trying to nail down your actual reference (and therefore the reference of the video you linked also). But it's been fun!

To "get" this reference, you will need:
1. to be old, like me (beer, circa 1981),
2. to be from the Pacific Northwest,
3. to know who Richard Farnsworth is,
4. to know what an Artesian is,
5. this link: http://videosift.com/video/Artesian-Gardener

Pacific razor clams

*quality music from the Pacific NorthWET!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Orcas, Tofino, surfers' to 'Orcas, killer whales, Tofino, British Columbia, Pacific, surfers' - edited by calvados

Manning Park, BC is the northern end of the Pacific Crest Trail.

Read http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/25863/del-toro-on-glados-use-in-pacific-rim about GLaDOS in the trailer.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/giant-squid-filmed-in-pacific-depths-japan-scientists/story-fn5fsgyc-1226549202804

They can grow to 10+ meters.

Australia has had great success in curbing gun violence. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws

Also, a new study has found that the stand your ground laws are linked to increased homicide and have done nothing to deter criminal activity. http://www.npr.org/2013/01/02/167984117/-stand-your-ground-linked-to-increase-in-homicide