Hmmm. Ok fucj it. I'll go and find a video with Aussies praising the confiscation of their property and rendering the place crime-free...ish.

This is more for the country that's headed towards a colossal fist-fuck because of politicians (criminals), pharmaceutical companies (insulated from mention by all major media and, not surprisingly, self-pimping turds without a clue like TYT, one of THE most flaccid, non-journalistic cretinfests on the web) who help to "create" mental-health problems larger than they need to be by unleashing damaged goods full of legal drugs prescribed by complicit doctors. Step in, the magic wand of unraveling and deconstruction of the U.S. Constitution by appointed and approved, so-called scholars from Harvard(oh hey, the same place not a few of the cunts who run the country hailed-from) to "provide" a solution for a problem that they created and you have the slow-motion train-wreck of the coming police state in one of the best places to be on the planet.

Everything is propaganda sparky, it's your job to wade through what you perceive to be bullshit, kinna like I'm wading thorough yours without really wanting to argue.

Brave New World. Newsflash: Eliminate gun-free zones, arm yourselves against an agenda to let mental health monstrosities roam the place un-checked on hardcore psychotropics with guns STOLEN from their fucked-up mommy, and don't ask a country who will hide their guns from a government determined to take them ALL away to accept anything less than a sane solution to what is primarily a problem created by the people with the MOST money, power, and influence.

Tell me why the pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be having their asses dragged across the coals on television for their part in mass-murder? Answer: Because they have more power and money than a gun lobby.

Again, I give fuck-all about loaded facts and figures form any side of the aisle, they mean dick because the real issue lies in governments fist-fucking their citizens. Shame on the the Brits for letting their government take their shit away and shame on the Aussies for letting the Crown fuck them as well.

>> ^alcom:

If Reps have a better sense of "how the world works," then why didn't they anticipate the mortgage-backed security crisis? Regulation is necessary, taxation is necessary and the freedom to marry who you want to marry is necessary to build a balanced and prosperous society. The Rep contradictions of "less gov = more freedom EXCEPT for marriage rights, women's bodies and more military spending" have been exposed to the majority as the fraud that they are. Obama endured relentless personal attacks, pointless filibustering and not a small amount of outright racism, lies and disrespect in a futile attempt to make him out to be the "worst president in history."
The people have spoken. Obama still came out on top, consistent to his values and gracious as he congratulated Romney on a hard-fought campaign. Taxing the top earners in the country a little more and cutting spending would be an effective way if paying down the deficit. How is this an illusion?
The Republican party needs to regroup. Their tactic of leaning further and further to the right (except in the last weeks) has soured too many right-of-center voters. If they argue now that they would have won "if only they had someone MORE conservative running," then they will surely lose again and again.



Apparently you have reading comprehension problems. I didn't say anything about republicans having a better sense of how the world works. I said that propaganda dictates how most people in this country seem to think. That if you talk to anyone they have no idea what Obamas real policies are or what they mean. I meant that mostly on the republican sides but it's true for democrats as well.

But go ahead, read what you want.

So that's what they mean by load-bearing.

I wonder from time to time whether a member ought to have been here for a certain amount of time before they get a channel, so that we have some assurance they mean to stay around for a while.

Time and again we see "grinders" who show up, ride a wave of nutshots and kittens to ruby in a month, and then burn out and never come back. We should avoid giving channels to these members.

I also think the moderator job should be "use it or lose it" and that channels that cannot function cleanly without an active moderator (viral, sexuality, terrible, cult, vintage, basically any channel that requires you to read the description) should be locked so they cannot be invoked or selected until a new moderator is selected. They could still be viewed and browsed, just no new content.

Or I guess we could keep doing what we've been doing, and treat channels as meaningless decorations that we display to the left of our video submissions.

@renatojj Apologies for the late reply, have been running for work and it doesnt look like that will stop

True that some countries may have less cooperation, though is that dependent on the economic system used or something else? For instance, East Germany had 100% employment and a very active economy, more so then west Germany in some regards. It was ofc run top down with little choice and politically biased, but I am not sure if that lessons the amount of economic transactions, ie cooperation. I guess it comes down to what you define as cooperation.

BTW "those criticisms of the depletion of finite natural resources consists of the economic Law of Diminishing Returns, opportunity cost, and scarcity in economics" -- I never understood what they mean with that. Even if the resource cost goes up strongly due to scarcity it doesnt mean that that resource can be replaced by something else, or that the higher cost (than the original cost of the scarce resource) of the replacement can be born by its consumers.

Now you say something very interesting: I agree with you that capitalism isnt always about ever-increasing competitiveness, in practice. In cases where you have competition, you get ever-increasing competitiveness. (This is in theory what all capitalism strives for) In cases where you do not have competition you dont. That is exactly what we are talking about. Free market philosophy assumes there is always near perfect competition right? How else would the market balance itself if there is no competition? Would you agree that free markets only work where there is competition?

Lets see when we have competition:

"competition is proportional to the difference between supply and demand" That doesnt sound right. If there is large demand and little supply (the difference is big), there is little competition as all suppliers will overcharge like hell as they will be able to sell anything they can manufacturer anyway. If there is large supply and little demand there can be competition, though usually this results in companies leaving the market until you have: If the supply and demand are about equal, you SOMETIMES have competition that keeps things in balance. Or you can have a monopoly for whatever reason and that market has again little to no competition. In other words, in no single scenario is competition guaranteed. Actually, there is good reason to assume markets move to monopolies naturally in all cases. In a market that is turning from early adopters to mass market, there is always focus on economies of scale. Companies need to get bigger to make sure they have the lowest cost price (best competitive edge) and to keep their shareholders happy as they demand growth to make their investments worth more. Bigger companies means fewer companies on the long run, as the market is always limited. This means companies will take over other companies until only a handful remain. Voila. Actually, if it werent for (anti-free market) anti-monopoly rules lots of markets would only have 1 company left. That company would be so big it would be impossible for a new entry to push them out of the market or even get a foothold unless the market itself crumbles because a newer range of products exist that make the old one obsolete. Again, without rules governing economies, things just go bust.

Which was what happened in the derivatives market. It was a completely deregulated market that was exploding itself as there were no rules governing it. When it did explode (ie when the free market failed) there were 2 options left: Let all banks fail or bail them out. Think of the consequences of following your recommendation: If 1 bank fails, it will pull the others down with it as they are all strongly interconnected. As banks are key in the economical world, the entire system would collapse. The amount of devastation would be huge, would probably kill the entire system. Now, you can argue that would be good for us, as we could build a fully new system. But before we would get there, there would be years if not decades of nightmares.
I agree with you that the fall of the derivatives market should never have happened in the first place which is exactly the reason to not follow free markets.

Above clarifies a bit my way of thinking: for many of these markets (be it banks or utilities or employment) the consequences of letting that market fail are just too big. If you have the guts to follow free markets to the end, it might work (isnt proven though) but you come to a point where you destabilize your country in such a manner that things like revolts and all kind of nastiness are highly possible and even likely. That is not progress, that is barbarianism.

You mention yourself that there are practically no free markets anywhere. You say that is because they havent been tried. I say that they have been tried again and again but never last.

and by Blizzard raiding people's wallets they mean producing a product the masses are willing to buy.

>> ^Auger8:

And by looting they mean Blizzard raiding people's wallets.


>> ^Fusionaut:

Yup, that's about it...
Still, there's just something about getting some better loot...

And by looting they mean Blizzard raiding people's wallets.

Of course, most people would agree that refugee claimants should receive no better health coverage than Canadians, but pregnant women, diabetics and people having heart attacks get free care. Why shouldn't refugee claimants get it too? This doesn't make it equal. I can't believe that's the best rationale they came up with. I'm curious what the real intent was. Save a few bucks? Pander to the racists? Didn't think there were enough of them. We're not America yet, are we?>> ^BoneRemake:

Steve~0 strikes again !
Chop cut chop cut.
BUT
I agree with this statement, be it true or not in this case.
Equalizing health care, they don't deserve anything more than I. What I get for "free" is pretty good, I can get a scope up my ass if I need, had one down my throat already. Good things to know. Wonder what they mean by equalizing, what would they get more than I ? a free heart ? what more is there.

Steve~0 strikes again !

Chop cut chop cut.

BUT

I agree with this statement, be it true or not in this case.

Equalizing health care, they don't deserve anything more than I. What I get for "free" is pretty good, I can get a scope up my ass if I need, had one down my throat already. Good things to know. Wonder what they mean by equalizing, what would they get more than I ? a free heart ? what more is there.

You mentioned a bunch of metaphysical rules of the universe above. I'm assuming that since God created the universe and everything and everything, that he created both the physical rules and these metaphysical rules too.

* "sin" --> Rule: Sin exists and is defined by a particular set of actions/thoughts/etc.

Sin is defined as disobedience to Gods commands

* "death" --> Rule: Death exists

Natural death temporarily exists..the second death is eternal

* "Their sin brought death into the world." --> Rule: When the first person sins, death will come to everyone.

This isn't a rule, it is simply a consequence of the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

* "He bore the punishment (death) for all sins so that through Him, we could be forgiven for our sins and be given eternal life." --> Rule: For humans to be forgiven for our sins and be released from death, someone had to be sacrificed.

There is a story about a King who decreed that anyone who committed the crime of adultery would have their eyes put out. This was enforced in the land for some time, until one day the prince of the kingdom was caught in the act. The King then was faced with a dilemma. On one hand He desired to be merciful to the prince, his son, but on the other hand he had to maintain his standard of justice to maintain the integrity of his authority in the kingdom. Therefore, to solve this conflict between justice and mercy, he put one of the princes eyes, and one of his own.

This story is similar to the reasons why God sent His Son to the cross. It was the solution to the conflict between His justice and His mercy.

* "What was required was a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God" --> Rule: The sacrifice had to be a perfect human to be effective.

The law was given because of sin, and the law couldn't make anyone perfect. What the law did was serve as a mirror unto man to show him what sin is. What was required was someone to perfectly fulfill that law so man could be reconciled back to God. Until that point, man had been spiritually separated from God because of sin. It took a sinless person to build that bridge and restore mans fellowship with God. That is why Jesus serves as a bridge between man and God, because it is only through His righteousness that we can reach God. Our good works are not good enough; they are like filthy rags before a Holy God.

So, why did God invent these particular rules? Why did he invent the concept of sin in the first place?

Why did your parents tell you not to play in traffic or take candy from strangers? For your protection.

Why not let us rut around like the other animals doing whatever occurs to us without the need for judgement?

Because we're not animals, and because we know better. He created us in His image and gave us a conscience to know right from wrong. We are set apart for His purposes.

Why did he invent death if he loved us so much?

Death was a punishment for sin. However, it was also a tender mercy. If mankind was immortal, we would be eternally separated from God.

Why did he create the rule that when one person sinned, the whole of creation would die (especially after he created humans such that they would sin all the bloody time)?

It wasn't a rule, but simply a consequence. When He created human beings, they were not made such that they would sin all of the time. It is when man chose to sin that his nature became corrupted. It's like how traits are passed down from their parents genetically..we inherited their sinful nature.

Why did God create such a horrible place as Hell? Why not just love Satan and Satan's angels (all his creations) enough so that they would be good again as he expects from you and me?

We don't know whether there was an offer of reconciliation to Satan or not. What we do know is that today they all stand condemned. Salvation is not "God loving us enough so we'll be good again".

Why would God create such an impossible condition for the forgiveness of sins that he would have to create and send his son to be killed by his fallen creation?

I gave an explanation for this earlier. I will say that His standard for goodness is moral perfection; that is inherent to His nature.

This all sounds like plot-driving fantasy writing to me (Rule: the one ring can only be destroyed by being dropped into the fires of Mount Doom; Rule: Fairy dust and happy thoughts will give you the ability to fly; Rule: Walking into the special closet without thinking about it will put you in Narnia), and that's why I think the Bible is fiction too. They're such random rules of cause and effect (not to mention some of the random rules of sin itself) that they can only lead to disaster and disappointment... unless they're just plot devices that lead to a bunch of awesome fantasy stories. And that's what I currently believe.

As you learn more I hope you will begin to make the connections between what we have been talking about for the past year or so. Although you are developing a more in depth understanding of the gospel, it is still on a superficial level and you have many misconceptions. If you want to understand it, then instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it. There is nothing logically contradictory about the gospel. It is internally consistent in every respect, and its depths are inexhaustible.

If God doesn't want to send us to Hell, why did he invent rules so that he would? Can't God just change or break his own rules and stop sending us to Hell?

Let's say you have a perfectly well behaved son, but one day he starts doing meth on your kitchen table and bringing hookers into his room every night. Are you going to compromise your standards and say that is okay or are you going to lay down the law and give him an ultimatum? You don't want to do anything that would harm your son, because you love him, but neither are you going to approve of his behavior, or endanger the well being of the rest of the household. You are going to let him know there are very real consequences to his behavior and enforce the rules.

God is Holy and just.

By who's definition? What can those human words of judgement possibly mean when applied to a god? And if we are following the human meaning of "just", how is it just to create the concept of sin, create death, create rules where if you sin you die, create hell as the punishment for sin, and then create humans such that we would definitely sin? That's not just in the least. And yes, you say that you and I have the chance to redeem ourselves, but what about those of us who lived and died before we had that chance? Why should they all have to suffer? They will never have the chance to accept Jesus as saviour.

God has given us progressive revelation. As I've said before, you don't go to hell for what you didn't know, you go to hell for what you do know and reject. Everyone prior to the cross was saved according the amount of revelation God had given them. For the gentiles, it would on the basis of their conscience. For the jews, it was on the basis to their adherance to the law.

The words holy and just wouldn't mean anything if God hadn't give us revelation about Himself. They mean something because of who He is. It is without Him that they would become meaningless. Essentially, it is all to say that God is perfect. Or as they say in philosophical circles, that He is a maximally great being, possessing every possible perfection.

We will experience life as God had originally designed it, here on Earth, before the fall.

That's a new one for me. Can you give me a quote? I was pretty sure heaven was up in the sky somewhere, even according to the Bible. Didn't Jesus "rise" into heaven?

Revelation 21:2-5

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Now, because of Jesus, we can be forgiven and go free. Jesus paid our fine in full. This is the good news, that through Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that He grants us eternal life. Pray to Jesus Christ and ask Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.

If my fine is paid in full and I've been given eternal life, why am I praying for anything?

For the same reason that if you wish to enter a door you must first walk through it.

>> ^messenger

>> ^messenger:

promote a new argument for gay marriage: "Traditional marriage? You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk


And no, his material isn't a new argument. It is a rehash of other people's arguments.

Yes indeed, I did.

Not sure the context is needed though, since it is such a hot topic.


In reply to this comment by messenger:
Awesome. I'm a huge Savage fan. Did you send the link to that video with it? The context is good.
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
I LOVE IT!!

I sent it to Dan Savage -- I thought he would get a kick out of it.

If he is a Princess Bride fan.

I mean, I REALLY love it!
In reply to this comment by messenger:
*promote a new argument for gay marriage: "Traditional marriage? You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

I LOVE IT!!

I sent it to Dan Savage -- I thought he would get a kick out of it.

If he is a Princess Bride fan.

I mean, I REALLY love it!
In reply to this comment by messenger:
*promote a new argument for gay marriage: "Traditional marriage? You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

*promote a new argument for gay marriage: "Traditional marriage? You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk