if you view this video with a western theosophy perspective,in which god is externalized,then yes..this clip makes no sense.
but if you view this with a more eastern theosophy,where god/gods are internalized,then this woman would not be so confusing.

the olsteens preach the 'prosperity gospel".though they deny it when asked directly,but thats what they preach,with a side order of mutated gnosticism.

see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
see:http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/

Yes and no. On one hand, he did preach inclusion and forgiveness, but he also said that the Law still applies. So technically, homosexuality is still against the Christian faith (along with eating shellfish, rabbit, pork, etc and thinking for yourself)

"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

I like John Oliver's program, but let me see here: the white male headlining the show, who probably got this gig on HBO when he substituted for another white male on the Daily Show, is telling us about how unfair corporate America is when it comes to gender? Every Late Night talk show host is a male. So it irks me when a male-dominated business preaches to me about unfairness towards women. Classic pot calling the kettle black.

If you want people to stop focusing on your appearance, it might help to not wear makeup. Makeup is the foundation of idealized gender representations. By wearing makeup, you're essentially saying that you're too ugly to show your real face.

It's amazing that so many would-be feminists preach about equality yet continue to foster inequality by wearing makeup.

@Trancecoach
sorry mate but you have entirely missed the point.

which i will take responsibility for,in my usual verbose fashion i sometimes lose the plot.

so let me try again:

you speak in the language and certitude of someone who has found jesus.
i didnt ignore your argument points because i was NOT ADDRESSING them.
i was,however,addressing your:condescension.arrogance and constant passive/aggressiveness.

you quoted MY comment,so i responded.dont puss out on me now that i called you out on it big guy.

god you are one big ball of passive aggressive.
oblivious to your own proclivities.
and THAT my friend is what saddens me the most.

but feel free to preach to the masses and chastise them when they disagree with your conclusions,sneering down at them from your fortress of arrogance.

yeah..thats the tactic to get them to listen to your words.

good plan.

let me know how that works out for ya.

@bremnet-Concealed is only the 'way-to-go (check your state's laws) unless you are able or willing to navigate the laws and duties and fine-print responsibilities once you sign-on to another hoop-toss to jump through. Most US state's existing laws let citizens arm themselves and carry legally without being on another bullshit hit-list.

SO the guys' being a dick, what of it with regard to state-sanctioned fascism, eh?? Get naked at your cousin's wedding and a bit tipsy an' let some bored neighborhood informant with a cell-phone and a tree-stump in their ass call the local pigs, and see how fast your world collides with your bank account and how many do-not-hire lists you get placed on. Preach that shit from a pulpit how about it??

Its really sad to see that so many people have been indoctrinated so well. But thats nothing new in human history. It just hurts that it still happens in such a time (the age of information) and in the name of science. Climate saving is first and foremost about money, which makes it a political and economical agenda. Else everyone would simply be planting trees, instead of actually hacking them down to make space for "climate saving technology" AKA bio-fuel.

Your "facts" are nothing but easily manipulated simulations based on theories, but your "facts" generate a LOT of money and security for many different people who didnt have that much money and security before and who see themselves in a very dangerous situation, because more and more indoctrinated people want their jobs too, to be a world-saving hero. So they need even more money and more panic.

Also very interesting to see how people like you see climate saving as a religion, without even noticing the similarities with religion. "Ohhh nooooo the world will end if... well... you dont give us your money!"
Sound familiar? No, I know it doesnt for you, but it does for intelligent people, who dont just follow "science" blindly.

I am glad that there are still scientists who stay objective and dont swim with the stream just because everyone else does. People like them were very often in history the people who were right at the end, because they could stay objective since they didnt feel the need to be part of a corrupt group that told them what is right and what is wrong and what they should do and shouldnt do. The funny thing is, exactly that deGrasse preached many times in his Cosmos show, and here it suddenly needs to be completely different.
Another hypocrite exposed.

You completely missed the point.

The point is that most people think they are not the problem. I don't even know what you think because your attitude seems to be "there isn't really a problem but at least I'm doing something about it." I'm actually impressed that you can be both contrarian and sanctimonious simultaneously.

I do do heaps of things about it. I'm not bothered listing them again, and besides it comes off as preaching, but I know it's not enough. I recognise that my contributions on their own are meaningless, and that is why I advocate for more meaningful change on a larger scale.

Yeah, I could give up the things I love to help the planet and sit back patting myself on the back while we plunge further toward disaster. Or better yet, I could engage in some kind of wishful thinking that everyone will follow my example and we'll all return to some kind agrarian paradise. Unfortunately, I don't believe that will happen.

The problem is that it's a genuinely difficult issue to solve. There are political, economic and even environmental (is nuclear a viable solution?) issues that all have to balance.

But like anything, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Don't give me that false equivalence BS, you don't have a different viewpoint, you have a demonstrably bad viewpoint.

I don't hate you, I pity you. I'm not the one that hates homosexuals and minorities,

people like you and lantern who judge people on the basis of skin color, and sexual orientation....

...are not good people, it's that simple. You are relics of the past.

It is socially acceptable to shame and call out people like you and lantern when we catch you voicing your antiquated ideas. Your social viewpoints are becoming less and less acceptable with each day. Even the right is slowly backing away on their attacks on minorities and homosexuals.

Your ideas...don't work, they never did.

I've told you and your pal lantern many times that you are free to be as backwards thinking as you want in the privacy of your own home and your own brain. But when you voice your bad ideas in public, expect to be called out and shamed.

You can play the victim card all you want. but you know it's not just me picking on you. Long before I ever showed up, you've been called out and shamed by many others here and you've been reprimanded by the staff of this website on multiple occasions. I'm willing to bet that unless you live in a hole in the ground in the deep south, you know better than to voice your ideas in public in real life since you know you'll get in trouble. Being an anonymous troll on a website is the only place you can voice your bad ideas, isn't it?

I understand that you're angry. The world changed on you and you're too set on your old ideas to change with it. Well you better hang on, because it's going to keep on changing and people who share your viewpoint will keep dying of old age. As it should be.

As I told lantern, start taking your own advice. You keep claiming that gays and minorites need to "suck it up".

Suck it up bob, suck it up. Why don't you practice what you preach about "rugged individualism" and quit whining? Take it like a man, right?

If you don't like it, go find a website that shares your viewpoints. Freedom of speech does not exist on a private website.

Deal with it. Your prejudice is only going to keep getting called out and you will continue to get shamed.

@RedSky

20 billion was just an arbitrarily large number I chose to demonstrate that I think that the world would survive significant population growth beyond what we'll be dealing with in the near future.

The point of no return I was referring to is simply a point where we won't be able to get back to a place where we can sustain human population levels without significant environmental degradation and territorial disputes, among other challenges I'd prefer not to experience.

I do consider things like global warming, the fact that China is buying up land in Africa to feed its population, US foreign policy's competitive focus on securing cheap oil and the large scale destruction of rainforest to make way for single crop agriculture in Brasil to be symptoms of an imbalance in population vs. resources.

I'm not drawing the line at "everyone and stock up at the grocery store/pumps" type destruction before I take notice and preach caution. I think that defining that as a deadline would be irresponsible.

Again, I agree that we could theoretically mechanize the whole world in a way that grows the supply of resources and shares them equitably amongst an enormous human population, but that goes against the type of world I'd want to live in (excessive mechanization of natural resources) and the way human social systems typically work (equitable sharing).

There are various estimates on how much longer exponential human population growth will last, but it has certainly happened on a scale of centuries or decades - blips like baby boomers are just expected outliers within that trend.

But what's more important is that even if population levels peter off, it is consumption - which is the only statistic that really matters because it is the only negative effect of population increase - that will continue to increase exponentially as a greater proportion of the world's population begins to achieve first world living standards.

This is why free trade alone is not enough to solve problems. While it is likely to bring people out of poverty, raise education levels and increase human rights (all very good things), it will also continue to push our overall imprint on the planet in a more exponential direction than I'm comfortable with (one reason being the argument detailed in this video).

But of course I'm also uncomfortable with the prospect of any sort of forced population reduction mechanism, and I'm also uncomfortable with the notion of not raising people out of poverty.

So as I see it the only thing left to mitigate my fears is to place a primary emphasis on Education.

There's a million and one ways to do this: Everything from broad, effectual efforts like getting the Pope to get with the program and endorse contraceptives, to nearly insignificant efforts like arguing with people on the internet in hopes that you contribute some small part to a culture that places some significant emphasis on educating people about the importance of self control and restraint in every type of consumption - family size included.

I guess I should clarify; I think that the pace of our advances is being bottlenecked by our current system because we (as nations) continue to exploit via a relentless focus on profit rather than try to actually spread knowledge and tech as best we can.

A free education system for the world would be incredibly easy to achieve with our current technology, but as nations we don't even try to aim for such a thing. As universities and other education institutions (publishing companies, etc), we have no incentive to truly aim for this in the current paradigm because it reverses profit growth (which, honestly, in the case of education, is pretty much all over-inflated anyway). There's no malicious intent, no conspiracy, and noble goals abound, but we're doing it at a snail's pace out of selfishness.

Individual people act much more nobly than large, well-established institutions. You see a rather strong trend of such large groups behaving closer to the "rational" approach from economic game theory, i.e. the one where self-preservation and gain are maximized first and foremost. If we just rely on our institutions to fix the problems at their root or think that the incidental improvements tied to increased tech and knowledge are being nurtured even half as well as they could be, I think we'd be gravely mistaken.

I think we both ultimately hope for the same outcome, but we clearly disagree on the extent to which our current society(/societies) effectively move towards those outcomes. I would personally like to see us double down on those things that help move us forward.

EDIT: Some examples of ways we're bullshitting ourselves and not doing half as much as we could, for your pleasure.

Princeton University's motto is "In the service of the nation and of all nations" (probably slightly off on the phrasing, sorry), and they have BILLIONS of dollars of endowment. If they and their alumni network took this motto seriously, with their knowledge of business, tech, and science, they could easily bring entire nations out of poverty by simply helping local people adapt tech in sustainable ways to provide food for their population more easily, institute strong education access, and more. Harvard, Oxford, all the other big names are in similar situations. They can do SO MUCH, but just do little projects while answering to their boards about making sure to keep the cash flow positive, keep the endowment growing, keep using alumni donations to pay for things where possible. It's bullshit.

Most large organized religions are also lazy about service. There are many who do seriously just aim at food and medical aid, but most are more interested in conversions and extra tithes than eliminating poverty. How many Christian missionaries of various sects are there around the world? Of them, how many devote their missions to actual service of everyone they can to show their religion through their works as opposed to just focusing on bringing people into the fold via preaching? Additionally, the old "teach a man to fish" concept comes into play here; giving food is good, but we need to be helping people help themselves as well so that they can thrive.

I know shit is very complicated and the answers aren't easy, but we can EASILY do better than this.

And yet here you are a demand homosexuals to keep their sexuality a secret, keep it away from the public eye because it upsets you with your faith.
Nobody makes you go kiss a boy (assuming you're male yourself here) but nobody stops you from holding your girlfriends hand in public either. Nobody tells you you can't get married in the legal sense because you're straight and no kid gets bullied in school because they're into the other gender.
You talk about beliefs and lifestyles and in that you disrespect gay people, force your belief onto them. It's not a lifestyle, it is who they are, at the very core of their existence, like being straight is not a lifestyle for you. Your refusal to acknowledge this is nothing but deminishing their very identity.
If homosexuality was a lifestyle, so would be heterosexuality. Lifestyles are not natural attributes given by the gods, lifestyle is choice. Do us a favour, choose neither of them, become asexual. It's the best proof, the Pope will agree.

In the end you won't be able to let go of this because christianity has always been obsessed with sexuality, especially that of other people. So eager to control masturbationary habits (Don't be Onan, fight the urge!), women's sexual freedom (Contraception is for whores!) and the queer (Worse abominations than seafood!) and therefore blind to see that this nonsense crusade against everybodys desires drives the masses away from their oh-so-important message of salvation. That's why you loose the fight, mankind is becoming more tolerant and we refuse to beat down the minorities for you any longer.
You can't have it both ways, you can't preach god is love and then hand us a list of people we're supposed to hate and expect us to nod in silent obedience. Times have changed, the minorities get more and more allies.
Honestly, that's what I admire about the Westboro Baptist Church, they're idiotic haters but at least they're consistent with their ideologies and brave enough to stand up for them.

> "I have little love for the state, but I do see a need for some actual 'higher power' (religious one's don't cut it) to further society in less harmful directions."

A "lesser evil" is still evil. I find this a contradiction at best. But you don't, so no need to get into it. So far you seem to be saying that such a "higher power" is or has to be the state, even though you say don't love the state.

> "If you feel a discussion is me forcing beliefs on you, that's just sad to me."

A "discussion" does not force beliefs on anyone. I understand that you are just stating/declaring what you believe. And like I said, I don't think your vote counts for much, so I can't even say that you are forcing your political view on me or on anyone else. So no, I don't think you are forcing anything on me, just stating your beliefs that I can chose to ignore.

> "To me, that means you're closed to any discussion that's not preaching to your choir, or to put it another way, you're only interested in mental masturbation, no distractions."

I'm not sure what you are interested in, so I can't really comment on it.

> "we obviously draw it in differing places, I'm OK with that."

Of course, you have to be ok with it because you can't really do anything about it one way or the other.

>"You need enough like minded people to vote thoughtfully and rationally and it will."

Good luck with that. I predict failure in this. But what do I know? And again, I am not stopping you. Go ahead and convince or find as many like-minded people as you need and vote to your heart's content. Obviously, I won't be one of those who agrees with you, as we have different ideas on what "thoughtfully" and "rationally" means. Voting is your strategy to get what you want out of the state. That's ok. That's your choice. Good luck. It obviously holds little to no interest to me. But I don't need to convince any "like-minded" people to do anything. I can just act on my own and take advantage of all the many ways there are to opt out.

> "So, you don't vote? No wonder you have no representation, that's your fault though.""

Wrong. None of the candidates represent me, so this is an idiotic thing to say. Who should I have voted for that would have "represented" me? Last I checked, there were two heinous options available. And unless there's a tie, your vote simply does not count. And then, will they do what I want them to do even when elected? Sorry. Waste of my time. But again, vote to your heart's content. I'm glad for you that you are being so well represented by your politicians of choice.

>"I can't find a group that fits me (or vice versa)."

Even more remarkable then that you have "representatives" that adequately "represent' you.

You are fortunate in so many ways.
Good for you.

If you change your citizenship to wherever you move they can't tax you anymore...why can't 'free marketers' buy a whole country and try it out fo realsies?
The country and state are owned by us all, we are represented by our government (no matter how poorly). Did school not teach you how that's set up? It should have.
You are saying it SHOULD be all private, which would make it the same thing with no recourse to move out of it, just to different controllers, the new one's not even elected or replaceable. Bad move.
Thank you, the implication that I'm unworthy of discussion with, then continued discussion was at best, odd.
I say the present government sucks, and sucks worse in some places than others. I'm saying we can make it better if we elect better reps, but never perfect for everyone, just not possible. I agree that there's too much 'governing' with far too little result, but I disagree that the answer is to stop governing.
I am surrounded by both cool people and losers, but we're spread out enough that it's easier to ignore the losers from here. I got lucky.
I do, I vote. That's how it's set up to be done, if people were more thoughtful, it would work better.
I only pointed out my situation because you had apparently decided I'm a worthless taker, and that's a mistaken assumption (but an understandable one, I'm odd).
Are you saying I said that 'who cares what you think'? because I never meant to. If you are saying that yourself, that's a problem for rational discussion.
I have little love for the state, but I do see a need for some actual 'higher power' (religious one's don't cut it) to further society in less harmful directions.
If you feel a discussion is me forcing beliefs on you, that's just sad to me. To me, that means you're closed to any discussion that's not preaching to your choir, or to put it another way, you're only interested in mental masturbation, no distractions.
There are degrees of being 'left alone'...just as there are degrees of 'able to do anything that doesn't HARM another'...it's about where you draw the line of 'left alone' or 'harm another'...we obviously draw it in differing places, I'm OK with that.

im no statist but this video is so childishly naive as to be laughable.

might as well call the free market jesus.

jesus is the way and the light.
follow jesus for salvation.
only jesus can absolve you of your sins.

this is about power.
if the libertarian is willing to acknowledge that the government is bloated and corrupt but unwilling to recognize the abuse of power wrought by corporations...because the corporation is part of the "free market"...they can end their sermon right there.

i am no longer interested.

if a libertarian preaches the importance of individual sovereignty and individual rights but dismisses that they are part of a community in a larger society.
they can proselytize at somebody elses door.

if a libertarian wishes to shower me with the glories of private property and ownership but ignore the importance and basic human dignity of the very workers who produce everything for those private owners.

then i say unto them that they wish to enslave their fellow man and the freedom they seek is for them alone and the rest of humanity be damned all in the name of profit and greed.

they can take their cult of ayn rand and masturbate somewhere else.

UNLESS....
they are willing to admit that:
1.as @VoodooV pointed out,we live in a society and a society is populated by PEOPLE.

2.that people deserve more than just the right to trade freely (which i agree with) but that human dignity and compassion,and yes..the right for life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3.that the corporation is actually MORE vicious than a government.a corporation is amoral by design! so if we are going to address the abusive powers of government,the abuses of corporations should be recognized as well.

4.the argument that corporations would not exist without governments is a canard.that may have been true in 1910 but no longer.there are corporations that have a higher GDP than most nation states.

5.the argument that governments start wars are only half-truths.can you guess what the other half is? thats right! banks and corporations using their power and influence to oppress third world nations...through the use (or abuse to be more accurate) of this nations military.see:smedley butler.

6.while a non-state would be amazing i am not naive enough to believe it could ever happen in our lifetime.yes many arbitrary borders have been penned by empires but there will always be lines drawn by cultural,religious and ethnicity..lets be honest.

7.while i do not share voodoos optimism in this democratic representative republics current health status (i feel it is broken and dysfunctional),it is a FAR better thing than the authoritarian,totalitarian system that is the american corporation.unless they went all democratic on me and i didnt get the memo.

8.government does have a role in our society,though it should be limited.
defense (not illegal and pre-emptive wars of aggression).
fraud control and law enforcement.
roads,fire,police,education and health,because thats what a society does for each other.
we take care of each other.
you dont like that? move to the mountains..have fun!

9.the corporate charter should be re-written."for the public good" should be re-instated for one thing.
a.i was talking to a libertarian and he used the term "non-aggression" and i really REALLY liked this.so a corporation will be held responsible for any and all:destruction to the ecology (local and abroad),destruction of peoples health,home and property.externalization of any sort will be seen as "aggression" and the CEO and all officers will be held liable to be paid by:dissillusion of company of jail time,they can choose.
b.a corporation is NOT a person and ZERO funds will be drawn from company money to purchase a legislator.they may spend as much money as they wish from their own personal accounts,but ALL contributions shall be made public over a certain amount.
c.any corporation that has been found to pay their workers so little as to put the burden on the tax payer shall be found performing an "aggressive" act against the american people and shall either pay the amount in full or forfeit their company.

dammit.im rambling ...again.
but oh baby am i digging this non-aggression dealio!

can i rewrite the corporate charter?
please please please please.....

*promote the discussion