Internal investigation and rehab...great justice. Just a few more years before we are on par with putting Jesus and Socrates to death.

>> ^griefer_queafer:

Wow. John Stewart is just showing himself to be an ornery old man here. He is actually wrong. Maddow is not the enemy, and neither is MSNBC. While I can't really hondestly say I am surprised by how equivocal and conservative he is being, it is disturbing. The tea party is NOT equivalent to a woman shouting war criminal on stage. His rhetoric is becoming knee-jerk and obnoxiously socratic: "But do you think MSNBC was AS dismissive to the tea party as it was to the woman screaming on the stage?" C'mon John...


How did you just watch and listen to Jon speak for the better part of an hour and not hear anything he said?

His point, as stated over and over, is not Code Pink ~= Tea Party, it's that the behavior they're (in)famous for is polarizing and stops or prevents any sort of discussion.

Wow. John Stewart is just showing himself to be an ornery old man here. He is actually wrong. Maddow is not the enemy, and neither is MSNBC. While I can't really hondestly say I am surprised by how equivocal and conservative he is being, it is disturbing. The tea party is NOT equivalent to a woman shouting war criminal on stage. His rhetoric is becoming knee-jerk and obnoxiously socratic: "But do you think MSNBC was AS dismissive to the tea party as it was to the woman screaming on the stage?" C'mon John...

This "when did you choose to be straight" thing is some straight-up Socratic skills.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I am lost in recursion there! Isn't a society just a group of citizens! Let's do direct replacement! "...behavior our group of citizens expects of its individual citizens" Whew, that feels better! Sometimes I get lost in ambiguity, I wonder if others do as well.
I would agree that is what democracy is, but I also see that like Socrates did, as groups stealing power away from individuals. In fact, that is what you see now, groups of people making grabs for power to take advantage of other groups and individuals. Group think is more powerful than individuals, so democracies tend to have this leaning towards the same type of tyranny as a monarchy. I don't know how to undo this evil and still have liberty. Perhaps it is as Jefferson put it with the blood of patriots. Perhaps that is what he was really talking about, entropy of any given system? The best that man can make lasts not against the ravages of time? Perhaps this is the sad reality we face, or perhaps we can take solace in the fact and start the rebirth of what has/is dying?


Yep, lost in recursion you are.

Who decides what individual rights are? You? Me? Something some guy wrote on stone tablets or parchment long ago? Maybe it should be up to the guy with the most money, or maybe just the most military power?

With about 5 minutes of self-reflection, you should realize that what you're struggling to come to grips with is that a) your view of morality isn't popular, and b) you think your morals should be popularly accepted as the only right and true ones, and c) realize that peaceful persuasion probably will never get you a lasting, permanent majority who agree with you so d) you start thinking revolution is the answer.

And through all this, you refuse to view your thoughts as being anything other than supporting liberty against tyranny when you have literally described how tyranny fights against liberty.

The beginning of understanding democracy is to admit that maybe the people who think differently from you have a legitimate point of view, and might even be tapped into a facet of the truth to which you might be oblivious.

It's a belief in the idea that if two heads are better than one, two hundred million heads are probably better than one, and that the only way to ever perfect anything -- including justice -- is through a perpetual debate over the issues in a forum where no ideology has an unassailable monopoly on our thinking.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Because democracy is all about controlling others whom don't share the same opinion.

Actually it's all about trying to work out which objective standards of behavior our society expects of its citizens, without having some king or set of stone tablets set those limits for us without recourse.


I am lost in recursion there! Isn't a society just a group of citizens! Let's do direct replacement! "...behavior our group of citizens expects of its individual citizens" Whew, that feels better! Sometimes I get lost in ambiguity, I wonder if others do as well.

I would agree that is what democracy is, but I also see that like Socrates did, as groups stealing power away from individuals. In fact, that is what you see now, groups of people making grabs for power to take advantage of other groups and individuals. Group think is more powerful than individuals, so democracies tend to have this leaning towards the same type of tyranny as a monarchy. I don't know how to undo this evil and still have liberty. Perhaps it is as Jefferson put it with the blood of patriots. Perhaps that is what he was really talking about, entropy of any given system? The best that man can make lasts not against the ravages of time? Perhaps this is the sad reality we face, or perhaps we can take solace in the fact and start the rebirth of what has/is dying?

>> ^Aniatario:

Socrates was right, this is why democracy doesn't work.
When logical evidence and argument cannot sway peoples opinions, which are all to be weighed equally, regardless of brain power.


I never knew socrates said this, but i've always said the same thing. I think democracy is the lesser of all evils to take you so far, but you reach a point where you can't go any further with it.

But don't ask me for a solution. And in that respect, i suppose it's the best option we have.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by kronosposeidon.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Socrates-Consolation-for-Unpopularity

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

Socrates was right, this is why democracy doesn't work.

When logical evidence and argument cannot sway peoples opinions, which are all to be weighed equally, regardless of brain power.

You missed the point kind of. The point is he can just respond to that with "I was just joking", then you are left with no ground to stand on. He is basically expounding on a few thousand year old idea of Socrates. Get people to talk about what they have said and done to get themselves even more tangled up. Let them lay down their own seeds of destruction and you won't need to say anything at all...just let them run with the line. Even just phrasing it "So do you consider yourself as racist?" is much more profitable to your goals. Then again, this is only if the goal of your communication is for the benefit of the speaker and those the speaker is addressing. The net effect of accusation is for the emotional benefit of the person accusing. But laying down the web benefits all parties.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Well when you're livin' in a pacman universe Enoch.. =]

Why waste your time contemplating divine concepts when contemplating practical ones give you more direct, less mysterious results?


people are different and we all appreciate,love and have a passion for many varying curiosities.
can you imagine how our world and society would be if there were people who did not think outside the box?
to reach and search for answers and understandings differently than the norm?
we wouldnt be talking on computers if they didnt.

i think our seeming disagreement is semantics.
when i use terms like "divine" or "spirit" ,you may perceive my usage from a different perspective.
that is the fundamental pitfall of language.

because..and i assume here..i really cant see you disparaging socrates or tsung,descartes or chardin.all of these men,in their own way..questioned the current belief system and in doing so CHANGED that belief system.

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious? Or is it pious because it is loved by the gods ?" - Socrates

http://videosift.com/video/Socratic-Robologues-Euthyphro

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
You son of a bitch! beat my by 20 minutes!
But now that im here in the comments section....wow

Socrates stated a long time ago that god cannot make a rule good or bad; that has to come from its own intrinsic qualities. Or in other words, god can't make a rule like "It's right to murder"

Idle banter from the desert tribes of 2000 years ago shouldn't be a part of American law.