*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/David-Mitchell-s-Soapbox-Passionate-Advertising

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Zifnab. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

>> ^Phreezdryd:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Phreezdryd:
The perspective of a non-runner to an audience of mostly non-runners, in a society where the majority seems perfectly happy not running. It's been a while since running long distance was a necessity, depending on geography and available technology.

True...we could argue whether or not it's been a positive thing or a negative thing. I fall in the middle...as in it's great we have all this technology but it would be even better if we also ran a bunch.

Some form of exercise would be good all around to be sure. How about the idea that we shouldn't be running in shoes, although supposedly designed to cushion and enhance, have been found to possibly be the culprit for whatever injuries runners suffer from. Simply not natural, and we wouldn't try to put shoes on a cheetah.


Yeah I run with special "Barefootie" type shoes because it helps my knees. Everyone should run.

>> ^Yogi:

This is sort of an argument from ignorance here. He doesn't understand running...he doesn't understand running with people. He also doesn't understand that if they weren't running for charity they would just be running, because that's what we do we're a running people.
Humans are meant to run for long long distances, it's in our genetics and our history. So while I love David Mitchell, it's just the sort of thing that if he put a little more thought into this video or maybe asked someone, it would've made a lot more sense.


In what way is it an argument from ignorance ?

All of what he said could have been said by sum-one that fully understands running , running with people , running for charity ,running for fitness , running as a socail activity.

He is not saying running is bad , or running with other people is bad he is just calling out the arbitrary nature of marathons.


I agree you can make the argument that some people would only run in the first place or chose to run in order to train for a marathon and so it serves that function of popular support and brain washing to make sure you train and have obvouse goal to train for.
and it also gets people involved with raising money for charity when they might not have otherwise however he is not arguing for or against those things.

Pritty much all of David mitchels arguments are pedantic and i'm sure you can de construct many of them in a negative way but there is still an element of truth to them and they call out some aspects of human nature that are arbitrary or often taken for granted as serous endevers when in reality they are just as absurd as anything else.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Phreezdryd:
The perspective of a non-runner to an audience of mostly non-runners, in a society where the majority seems perfectly happy not running. It's been a while since running long distance was a necessity, depending on geography and available technology.

True...we could argue whether or not it's been a positive thing or a negative thing. I fall in the middle...as in it's great we have all this technology but it would be even better if we also ran a bunch.

Some form of exercise would be good all around to be sure. How about the idea that we shouldn't be running in shoes, although supposedly designed to cushion and enhance, have been found to possibly be the culprit for whatever injuries runners suffer from. Simply not natural, and we wouldn't try to put shoes on a cheetah.

>> ^Phreezdryd:

The perspective of a non-runner to an audience of mostly non-runners, in a society where the majority seems perfectly happy not running. It's been a while since running long distance was a necessity, depending on geography and available technology.


True...we could argue whether or not it's been a positive thing or a negative thing. I fall in the middle...as in it's great we have all this technology but it would be even better if we also ran a bunch.

FTFY
>> ^criticalthud:

and...because of drones, it is utterly irrelevant.


Actually, and while I'm on this soapbox, @EMPIRE is right. By the title of this video, I though I was going to see something impressive, like landing on a vertical surface. Sure there are aspects of the F35 that are impressive, but VTOL is not one of them.

It's kinda like showing off a smart phone and going "it's a smartphone THAT MAKES PHONECALLS!!"

That said, while I am philosophically and pragmatically opposed to spending billions on flying killing machines that don't even have an enemy to fight, fighter jets are generally some of the most impressive bits of engineering around.

>> ^lantern53:

War is hell, but learning chinese would be worse.


Don't worry, the Chinese will never invade. They will simply foreclose.

In your first paragraph you paint the picture of absent federalism or nullification, practically pre-civil war state power restored. If it'd come to that, I think the USA would cease to exist in its current form of 50 states.

2nd paragraph: Aurens hinted at the antitrust laws being too lenient. I agree that money needs to be taken out of the political process, but I don't think dissolving anti-trust instead of fixing and enforcing it is preferable.

third paragraph and following: American Dream and American Exceptionalism and Excellence have turned negative, i agree.

My rant : I think RP'S fight against selfishness is in the wrong direction, but social policies are decried as "Socialism!" too fast, succumbing to scaretactics, which sadly work. Imho, market libertarianism is a political ideology: The solution to everything is "free market!" and "Voluntary everything!"; this sounds nice, but will likely fail, because everything is too complex for a one-phrase-solution. "How will our country prosper? - Communism!"

I (think I) know how it works, I've been ideological myself, it is very nice to think one's movement as better than all other movements, and everyone else is wrong. All solutions of my movement will work, and all imperfections couldn't be helped, they who fell through the cracks did not trust the movement enough.

Isms do not hold the answer,imo, not statism, not liberalism, not communism, not fascism, not liberalism, and not conservativism. Instead of trying to see how an -ism can provide the solution, a politician should just try to find the best solution. Rant end.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Or you could just choose a state that represents your ideas and move there--where laws could prevent wanton firing, the state could have a universal health plan, etc. Problem is, people would be rebelling against their own stupidity. They would be to lazy and complacent to vote via boycott to create honest corporations...
Besides, we already have mega corps that are bleeding us dry from the throat, and then moving on. We are already in decline.
And besides that, we all note that RP is more a movement than anything. Those lazy, arrogant, cocky bastards who go day-to-day about their lives with only a care about themselves--that's what RP is fighting against. Is he doing it wrong? Sure. But that's not the point. Someone has to fight it.
"American excellency." How horrible a lie! How decadent, how evil, pure evil! That attitude is rotting us from inside out. And most Americans believe it! But RP says NO. And that is why I like him.
Off soapbox.

Or you could just choose a state that represents your ideas and move there--where laws could prevent wanton firing, the state could have a universal health plan, etc. Problem is, people would be rebelling against their own stupidity. They would be to lazy and complacent to vote via boycott to create honest corporations...

Besides, we already have mega corps that are bleeding us dry from the throat, and then moving on. We are already in decline.

And besides that, we all note that RP is more a movement than anything. Those lazy, arrogant, cocky bastards who go day-to-day about their lives with only a care about themselves--that's what RP is fighting against. Is he doing it wrong? Sure. But that's not the point. Someone has to fight it.

"American excellency." How horrible a lie! How decadent, how evil, pure evil! That attitude is rotting us from inside out. And most Americans believe it! But RP says NO. And that is why I like him.

*Off soapbox.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^aurens:
"He's not really promoting that people need to take more responsibility for others, he's promoting the idea that you shouldn't ever be held responsible for anyone but yourself."
This is the main fallacy of your post. Ron Paul does believe that we have a responsibility towards others. He doesn't believe, though, that it's the government's role to enforce that responsibility. Until you understand that distinction, you'll continue to misunderstand his message.
>> ^NetRunner:
Or...it just points out that implementing his policies would lead to a nightmare dystopia, and that he's not really helping push society in a more compassionate, altruistic direction ...

I think NR gets that, but I can only speak for myself:
Let's say RP gets his ideology through to the presidency and would have 76% of all seats filled with people that share the same ideology, supreme court as well, and ditto for the military (just for completeness). Abolish the national health care system and all other governmental social securities. All regulations and all subsidies get canned, plus: No more wars on foreign soil. Small government.
So let's assume that all people who were laid off in the social sector are immediately hired by the free market companies, all the laid off military personnel from foreign bases find some jobs. Plus: Everyone's net pay comes out as it would be without the taxes.
Let's assume patent laws are still in existence: Drug companies holding a patent can charge whatever price they want, other companies would have to field the costly research themselves to come up with a similar patent. --> costly and ineffective.
If there are no more patents, no company would do research for new patents to stay in business.

People can get fired on a whim without regulations. As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce. Wages will be low, as there will be enough replacement workforce. People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies), expensive public transport (no subsidies, high prices for gas) and their rents (which would most likely also be high, as their landlords need more money).
Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded. The underfunded ones only pay out for immediate threats of life. Only few charities with rich backers have enough income to provide for their employees and selectively only grant moneys as dictated yb their rich backer: Most likely to employees of his firm. What happens to people without jobs? Completely dependant on charity. Around the few charitable organisations, slums are built by the people who rely on the distributed food. Many of these people get hired for the day just for a little money and a bit of food.
Soem are kept by rich people as their personal poor they care for (see India).
People start flocking to the remaining rich states, large areas of middle-America are depopulated, as the aging communities cannot sustain themselves. Farmer is the most popular job again.
The poor revolt, the underfunded police force joins them. Private security of the rich fires into the crowds.
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Another defector:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:
1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.

BONUS: Do you really think there would ever come a day when the alarmists concede they were wrong, especially after establishing a world climatocracy of near-absolute power? Ha.


Second time of saying this to you - who has ever claimed to know the exact right temperature the earth is "meant" to be? It doesn't even make sense as a statement. "Meant" to be how, in what way? You must be quoting something a knowlessman has said.

Second time of saying this to you as well - you have the wrong target. The politicians are manipulating "climate change" into a money-spinner. But that doesn't mean that climate change is wrong, it means the politicians are wrong.

They and the oil barons are manipulating you and you owe it to yourself to go out and independantly educate yourself. The data is there qm, and it is abundantly clear that there is an anomalous spike in temperature which presents itself around mid 1900s. The only thing left to discuss is why it is happening, and david mitchell is suggesting that no rational human being would simply do nothing when there is even the vaguest chance that we are contributing to the anomaly.

Hate the politicians, not the science they use and abuse to manipulate you with. I hope you listen this time, but i know you won't.

1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
---Not the precise temperature--the average temperature.

2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.
---Don't need to set the temperature--just try to lessen the rate of the obvious temperature rise.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Another defector:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:
1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.

BONUS: Do you really think there would ever come a day when the alarmists concede they were wrong, especially after establishing a world climatocracy of near-absolute power? Ha.

TL;DR

Fox News story about 1 scientist disagreeing with the entire community over one sentence.

Goes on to quote Fox News poll (appeal to the masses) that not surprisingly shows that dumb non-scientists think that the fact that scientists don't all agree about something is some kind of proof of something.

I N C O N T R O V E R T I B L E

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php>> ^quantumushroom:

Another defector:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:
1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

Remember when these used to be funny?

You mean the comments?

>> ^peggedbea:

my son just asked if this was a video of him when he grows up....?


"Yes son, you'll be a british cynic who grew a beard and rants about first-world-problems."