They are against all government. They make no distinction between good or bad. They live in a simplistic, black and white world where they are champions of liberty fighting against tyrants and sheep. They should check a mirror.

so they live in a drain pipe right under a road?

Yeah... I don't see that ending badly at all.

>> ^KnivesOut:

There may be some objective truth out there, but you'll never know what it is, even if someone told it directly to your face, you'll hear it through imperfect ears.
Objectivity doesn't exist as long as life is experienced through subjective reality. In other words, your eyes and ears and brain make it hard to be objective. Your interpretation of the universe is entirely your own. The foundation of this discussion is inherently flawed.


I hope you see my point. Now, you may actually be stunned because I agree with everything you're saying here, with two caveats. You could not possibly know the truth, unless:

a. you are omnipotent
b. an omnipotent being reveals the truth to you

Since we can safely rule out A for either of us, you can see that B is the only possible way we could know what is objectively, or absolutely true. That's my claim. If you can admit that God can reveal things to us in such a way as that we can know them for certain, then you have to admit that I have a route to truth through the revelation of an omnipotent being. Therefore I can justify things like morality, laws of logic, uniformity in nature and so forth. An atheist has no route to truth and cannot justify these things. That is the inherent problem with atheism is that an atheist has no basis to make truth claims, and he must admit his life is completely meaningless and that he has no value, dignity or any justification for saying what is right or wrong. That's what this video is about, essentially, that no one can or does live that way, and that atheists have cognitive dissonance because they live like Christians but then deny God with their atheism.

I think this product will be for some, but not all. Oh look, I won your little debate.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^brycewi19:
>> ^spoco2:
'How to get that last mile to your destination?' Um... how about walking?
I mean, this thing is pretty damn cool, but come on people, walking a mile is actually a GOOD thing, not something to be avoided.
All the houses we've bought as a family I've mandated it had to be a 'good walk' away from the nearest train station so I can get me some daily exercise. A couple of kms each way each day does you a world of good. A lot moreso than standing on a powered board would.
Still, if it gets people out of cars, it's a net win.

I would maintain that there a lot of people who are going to work, just getting off the train or bus and still have a mile or two to go who don't necessarily want to be sweating in their work clothes before they get to their job.
My guess is that there are enough people who already showered, did their make-up or whatever, and still want to look good without looking like they just had their second morning workout.

If someone gets sweaty and dishevelled from just walking a mile, then I think they need that walking more than they realise

Or they live in a hot place? Ever walked a mile in NYC in August?

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^brycewi19:
>> ^spoco2:
'How to get that last mile to your destination?' Um... how about walking?
I mean, this thing is pretty damn cool, but come on people, walking a mile is actually a GOOD thing, not something to be avoided.
All the houses we've bought as a family I've mandated it had to be a 'good walk' away from the nearest train station so I can get me some daily exercise. A couple of kms each way each day does you a world of good. A lot moreso than standing on a powered board would.
Still, if it gets people out of cars, it's a net win.

I would maintain that there a lot of people who are going to work, just getting off the train or bus and still have a mile or two to go who don't necessarily want to be sweating in their work clothes before they get to their job.
My guess is that there are enough people who already showered, did their make-up or whatever, and still want to look good without looking like they just had their second morning workout.

If someone gets sweaty and dishevelled from just walking a mile, then I think they need that walking more than they realise

Or they live in a hot place? Ever walked a mile in NYC in August?

We don't prosecute most nutjobs that let their kids die because they are using prayer for medicine, and that is a wanted cared for child, but the gov't can't get involved in those parental choices.

But here are morons wanting to force medical decisions on people. And no, all fetus aren't created equal, some aren't viable, think how many wanted pregnancies never end up in a live birth.

The same assholes want to ban abortion, because it is easy. There is a clinic, it is a building or a few people or a woman they can take their beliefs out on. These same people aren't trying to prevent women that are drinking or taking meth or crack during pregnancy. They aren't there giving food to malnourished live human lives that need protecting. They just care about stopping a building, a simple procedure, something tangible. They aren't setting up adoption networks, or child care or donating food or baby sitting to women that can't afford children.

They are privileged people who can't imagine being in a situation, so they assume everyone should live like them. It's the same way they want to enforce state issued photo ID, or ban night or weekend voting. It's because they can get a driver's license and just can't imagine someone who cannot get out of work and go at 3pm to vote. They can't imaging a 95 year old woman that can't get on three bus lines to a DMV and pay $30 for an ID, but first they have to stop off at the SSA to try and get a social security card they never had in their lifetime.

They are the scum of the Earth that want to be able to tell everyone how to live, but recoil at the idea that gov't might have some say in how they live. But are more than willing to force gov't choices on other people.

Vote Rmoney. (Actually Obama is the same choice)

And those nutjobs out there promoting this, sorry, but a pregnant 13 year old raped by their father/uncle/brother, shouldn't have to be forced to have a baby. And the sad part is these idiots can't even back away from this ledge, even Rmoney isn't that stupid, unlike some sifters.

I'm Israeli, so feel free to consider me biased on the matter.

Egyptians have been treated like shit for decades because they lived under the rule of a corrupt regime. Granted, the US had given aid to that regime, and its stability was in the interest of Israel - any other policy would've meant war.

The Egyptian regime had encouraged a media and literature ban on normalization with Israel, in order to turn Israel into a scapegoat for the people's frustrations and in order to stop people from being able to compare their situation to that of Israeli citizens. And as the regime controlled parts of the media, "encouraged" is perhaps too soft a term.

So this is not an instance where years of being "treated like shit" by Israel caused an understandable outburst of hatred. This is a consistent example of hatred being indoctrinated for years (some past examples: here, here and here).

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bobknight33:
Raciest in the extreme.

There are legitimate reasons to hate Israel, and illegitimate reasons. Me? I hate people who can spell.

can or can't? ;3
I aint no fan of Israel, but throwing punches because you think they lied about being Jews? Aint no rhyme nor reason. The fact they can prank people like this because they reaction is so expected is worrying tbh. Where else in the world could this happen. No wonder the Jews were anxious when Mubarak went...
ps. That woman is beautiful.

They should be anxious because if the Egyptian military who get TONS of US funding are pushed out of power too much then it's a serious issue. The only reason Israel get to be dicks to everyone is because of the US. The US loses Egypt, their control looks more tenuous and then next they might have to actually start listening to other people rather than doing whatever the hell they want.
These people are racist fucks...but it doesn't come from nothing. They hate the fact they were tricked, less understandable. They've been being treated like shit for decades cause of the US and Israel...more understandable. You piss people off you set a bad example...like even good World War 2 soldiers who will hate Japanese people forever because of what they saw. We're humans, we're Fucked Up.

unexpectedly survived?

Ok, I dont know much about marine biology, what I mean is that most crabs lay MILLIONS of eggs, most of these are eaten by fish and other creatures, in reality they neither expect to survive or expect to be eaten, they are just eggs, after all, and the same is true for the adult crabs, they simply lay the eggs and dont expect much at all, I assume. When I used the word "unexpectedly" in this context I mean that we, as observers, should expect most of them will be eaten.

I am suggesting that eggs that "should" have been eaten, wasn't.

Its all speculation on my part, of course, I was just trying to suggest a more-likely-than-mutation-explanation for their sudden appearence. Mutation doesnt have this kind of impact over a year or two, for mutations to change the creatures enough to change the way they reproduce, where they live, what they look like etc, you need mutations in hundreds of generations with selection. A mutation causing a sudden appearence of millions of indiviual organisms isnt likely at all.

Mutations doesnt work like in freaking Ninja Turtles, they dont just "create new species" like that. for a new species to be created you need mutations creating variations that are selected over many generations in isolation from the original species.

We sleep, they live.

They live in that area, so they know what to expect. The behavior by this lion was relatively strange. I'd personally have wondered if marine animals can acquire rabies, rather than any of the typical dangers they might present. Either way, I'm sure these guys were ready to bludgeon it in the head and paddle for the shore if anything.

Lions aside... look at those fish! Whew! Man those look amazing. I kind of can't blame the lion!

If I wanted America to fail:

• I'd build lots of coal fired power stations. Preferably right in the middle of major cities to maximise the health effects. Obviously I couldn't do it myself, so instead I'd just phase out the EPA and then let the energy companies do it. I'd tell people it was for prosperity.
  
• I'd just close the schools... no, wait, even better... I'd let schools charge fees according to their results, and let private schools compete with public.
  
• I'd teach the children that they live in the greatest country on earth, and they should never question that fact. In fact, I'd make it an offense to speak out against America... it's unpatriotic.
  
• I'd remove all the regulations impeding business. This would increase the flow of wealth from the poor to the rich, but I'd say it was creating jobs (and market crashes just happen, they can't be stopped).
  
• I'd phase out the metric system, see the point above, the United States of America is the greatest country on earth... and should be able to use whatever archaic convoluted system of weights and measures they like.
  
• If I wanted America to fail, I would prey on the evil already in the hearts of the Oligarchs, and convince them to just keep doing what they're doing. It's for the greater good.
  

I think the way I'd put it is that I disagree that "Hegelian dialectic" is being appropriately used in the video. Here is a nice concise introduction to the concept. It's an alternative method for reasoning, and therefore is about trying to reach a better understanding of truth -- it has nothing to do with psychology, politics, or trying to control people.

The triadic structure of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis can, if you squint a bit, be re-purposed as a general theory about how political and scientific progress happens. First you have a thesis (e.g. "property is the only right"), then you have an antithesis ("property is theft"), and once people realize that while both positions contain insights, neither absolute position is fully correct, and so we generate a new thesis that combines the valid insights of each -- a synthesis ("a right to property is one of many rights, and without limits can and will infringe on those other rights"). But that's not a Hegelian Dialectic, that's just a slightly stilted way at looking at how "classical" reasoning sometimes plays out in the real world.

All that said, none of this serves to support the thesis that modern conceptions of the political left and right have been invented in order to achieve some sort of nefarious synthesis. Worse, if you think it's a Hegelian Dialectical synthesis we're heading for, then not only is it not a Reichstag fire, it's a giant leap forward in humanity's understanding of itself, because we will have figured out how to simultaneously resolve the left's criticisms of society (not enough equality in wealth and power), and the right's (too many people disputing the rightful distribution of wealth and power that arises from market action), though personally I don't think the resolution of that thesis/antithesis conflict will result in synthesis, just in the right's thesis being discarded. Again.

Long story short, if this is the foundation for a conspiracy theory, it's already gone way out into left field before it's even gotten started.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...


hey man,
i cant tell if you are agreeing with the video or not.
i am going to guess on the negative.
which kind of confuses me because the video is really just laying out what the hegelian dialectic is and how it can be used to be a lever of control.(sans the ron paul filler at the end).
i found it a pretty short but succinct in its intended goal to educate.

your descriptions of "shock doctrine" and "disaster capitalism" are correct but your premise seems to ignore that both utilize the hegelian dialectic to execute properly in to a society.

example:
problem (thesis)<------------------> reaction (antithesis)

but what if the institution meant to execute the reaction is the very same institution which created the problem,and hence is in the position to offer a solution? a solution which may have been the very thing they were after in the first place?

see where i am going with this?
so while in one scenario the problem is a creation,a facade, (shock doctrine) and the other (disaster capitalism) is an opportunistic leap for control,BOTH utilize the hegelian dialectic to accomplish their goals.

i am not a huge admirer of hegel (ok,i think he is a cunt) but he did understand human beings and the societies they live in because his predictions have played out quite accurately,when placed in the right context.

my thinking behind posting that video was to help people become aware of those levers of control.the philosophy behind those who wish to dominate and control the masses.
the more you know and all that jazz.

once you understand the hegelian dialectic and HOW it is used,you will see it in places and used in ways that prior you would have thought impossible.
it is used by those in power often and extremely well.

anyways.i just wanted to drop a note to you because either i misunderstood your comment or i am just a tad retarded.
in either case my friend,know that i love your commentary and i especially love your optimism.
really..keep up the optimism.my cynicism needs a dose every now and then.
peace brother.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...


hey man,
i cant tell if you are agreeing with the video or not.
i am going to guess on the negative.
which kind of confuses me because the video is really just laying out what the hegelian dialectic is and how it can be used to be a lever of control.(sans the ron paul filler at the end).
i found it a pretty short but succinct in its intended goal to educate.

your descriptions of "shock doctrine" and "disaster capitalism" are correct but your premise seems to ignore that both utilize the hegelian dialectic to execute properly in to a society.

example:
problem (thesis)<------------------> reaction (antithesis)

but what if the institution meant to execute the reaction is the very same institution which created the problem,and hence is in the position to offer a solution? a solution which may have been the very thing they were after in the first place?

see where i am going with this?
so while in one scenario the problem is a creation,a facade, (shock doctrine) and the other (disaster capitalism) is an opportunistic leap for control,BOTH utilize the hegelian dialectic to accomplish their goals.

i am not a huge admirer of hegel (ok,i think he is a cunt) but he did understand human beings and the societies they live in because his predictions have played out quite accurately,when placed in the right context.

my thinking behind posting that video was to help people become aware of those levers of control.the philosophy behind those who wish to dominate and control the masses.
the more you know and all that jazz.

once you understand the hegelian dialectic and HOW it is used,you will see it in places and used in ways that prior you would have thought impossible.
it is used by those in power often and extremely well.

anyways.i just wanted to drop a note to you because either i misunderstood your comment or i am just a tad retarded.
in either case my friend,know that i love your commentary and i especially love your optimism.
really..keep up the optimism.my cynicism needs a dose every now and then.
peace brother.

Ha. Well, if you can't disprove that the jury was significantly composed of ethnic minorities, it will be tacit admission that asking questions is a useful part of using our brains.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^chilaxe:
It's one thing to uncritically accept narratives you're fed (I understand most people are like that), but to try to discourage others from asking basic questions is taking the role of unquestioning drone a bit too seriously.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^chilaxe:
I'm glad everyone is getting on board now with the Stand Your Ground law, but it seems like we only have a narrative that's 100% from one side of the story.
Since both the defendant and the prosecution are representing African Americans, and they live in an African American area, the jury was probably mostly African American, right? If so, why were these African Americans racist against her? The article says it only took the jury 12 minutes to decide.

A whole lot of assumptions you're making.


I thought your questions weren't really questions, just bullshit.