But with all the tentacle rape going on, we already knew that...
>> ^EmptyFriend:

from the sounds of it, maybe you don't want to be a woman in Japan....

I think our main disagreement is really about what religion is, ie how to define it, And I'm struggling to get my view across. Are you familiar with the expression/story "Nail soup" Its a common folk-tale from I think sweden, and it concerns a homeless man/wanderer and a woman. Basically, the wanderer is looking for food and a place to sleep, and he convinces the woman to give him a place to sleep, but she says she doesnt have any food. But then the guy explains that he can cook world class soup on nothing but a rusty old nail. Naturally, the woman is skeptical, but agrees to let the man try, so he boils up some water and tosses the nail in. "Its really getting tasty now, he says, and if only.. well, I shouldnt say.." "No, go on", says the woman, now getting interested "Well.." he says "..its just that a pinch of salt would really do the trick, but its not strictly needed" so the woman gives him some salt, and then he keeps talking, and eventually they put in pepper, carrots, mushrooms, some leftover meat, and so on,(none of them actually needed, he explains) and it ends up being a really good soup, and the woman, of course, having been completely duped, breaks out the finest brew to go with it and impressedly exclaims "And all that on a nail!, Amazing!"

I think religion is a bit like that nail. If you take an average Christian, lets say, their lives, their morality, their views on sexuality, human rights, equality,community, world affair and whatnot is almost entirely free of influence from anything in the bible, but they will nevertheless THINK they've been informed by the bible and their religion, just like the woman who think shes eating soup cooked on nothing but a nail. But of course, its not the nail that makes the soup great. In fact, it would probably be better without it, and yet the nail gets all the credit. Thats how I view religion. Like a rusty nail, it really has nothing to offer in the "soup of wisdom", we have vastly superior methods of gathering information and making judgements about the world. To the degree that religion CAN influence your decision-making process, it would have to, by definition, be something unique to the respective religion. And whats unique about a 2-4000 year old attempt at philosophy? Well, for starters we know that the people who wrote it knew next to nothing about the world they lived in. They were primitive, frightened, superstitious peasants who thought the gods would punish them for being naughty in bed, who thought the creator of the universe cared which kind of bipedal ape should live in Israel, and that they had to cut of their foreskins to prove that they were from the right tribe.

This is not a good source of wisdom, and if you REALLY base your morality or actions upon this earliest and worst attempt at philosophy, you could just as well feed your family on nothing but nails.

EDIT 24.08.10:
So what I'm really saying is that i honestly dont think religion has any good to offer. And even if it does( as with certain quotes by jesus, certain aspects of Buddhism and so on) I , as an atheist, have no trouble just stealing those good ideas, not because they are or are not part of a religion, but because they are good ideas. I dont need to think Jesus is the son of God anymore than i have to think Einstein was the son of God to think that their ideas are brilliant. So whats left of religion? well its the empty shell of superstitious, unverifiable,highly improbable noise that we call dogma, and thats the part that go haywire, because it makes ridiculous and untrue claims about the world, and that makes people make bad decisions . If you really think, say that the "prophet" Muhammed had personal contact with the creator of the universe, as is the assumed belief of all proper muslims, what room is there realistically left for doubt and interpretation? why should you then be critical of any of the actions or claims that the prophet has made? This is precisely whats wrong with religion, it places an invisible barrier between certain claims and our duty to be critical and skeptical towards them, some religions more than others, and some forms of religion more than others, but basically thats what it does. By calling texts and scripture "holy", criticism is forbidden either directly and by force by some ruling authority, or, more commonly, but just as disturbingly, by people engaging in self-censorship of their mind, a kind of thoughtcrime mindset.

How awesome is that? Ze Frank dabbling in world affairs?

I don't think this issue gets talked about enough. It's a serious problem in world affairs.

[EDIT] serious moral problem

The clip shows Vintage clips of Politics and World Affairs so thats why i put it in those channels. Feel free to amend.

He lived a good life. RIP.

>> ^imstellar28:
I'm an American who got my education in America, I know nothing about world affairs.


Learned a lot about expressing yourself though I see and had the freedom to do it. I know there are people in Iran who would trade spots with you right now.

I'm an American who got my education in America, I know nothing about world affairs.

Christopher Eric Hitchens(born April 13, 1949) is an author, journalist and literary critic. He has been a columnist at Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, World Affairs, The Nation, Slate, Free Inquiry, and a variety of other media outlets. He currently lives in Washington, D.C.. Hitchens is also a political observer, whose books — the latest being God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything[1] — have made him a staple of talk shows and lecture circuits. In 2009 Hitchens was listed by Forbes magazine as one of the "25 most influential liberals in U.S. media."[2] The same article noted, though, that he would "likely be aghast to find himself on this list" and that he "styles himself a radical," not a liberal. miserable man. The End

-anonymous right wing loony on an internet forum, 2009

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (pdf), the consensus opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies:
"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."

That may be (I don't believe it) but I'm responding to this video where Reza cites the IAEA in 2003.

Citing "U.S. intelligence agencies" doesn't give me a lot of confidence considering they did not in fact know India had nukes (yes they knew they were pursuing them. Germans were pursuing them in WW2. I mean "had nukes" as in they actually had them. Ready to use. It was 1973 when India detonated one to the shock of intelligence communities around the world) .. But of course this is the intelligence apparatus that determined there were WMD's in Iraq.

Shouldn't Israel then as well. Instead of telling the Palestinians what form of existence they should enjoy? I mean honestly you talking about a nation whose power structure was assassinated by the CIA for oil rights brought in a corrupt Shah. Eventually lead to the Islamic revolution. No US dialog has been maintained since. It's like me kicking over someones sand castle and then becoming shocked at their attempt to punch me in the face.

You're changing the whole argument here to something that has nothing to do with this video. Now it's about Israel and Palestine. I know it's America's fault somehow because you mentioned oil and the Shaw. Not sure what is your point though? Does Iran resent and hate us because of the Shaw yet the people in the street now want to engage us and move past that? Bonus points if you can actually make it relate to this video.

Should Israel dial back it's rhetoric of what? That it will defend itself? They are faced with an enemy that is bent on their destruction. Iran. A sovereign state has made it a mandate that they will seek the extinction of this people. That's kind of rude huh? One of the main stumbling blocks for US foreign policy is Israel. Is that because Israel is so fucked up or because there are so many Islamic run regimes that are committed heart and soul to seeing Israel annihilated? Personally, it doesn't matter how you look at it .. they are our allies, and like Britain, Australia, Japan or any of America's trusted friends .. we are bound to defend and support them. It would be a lot easier to turn our back on our allies, but that isn't going to happen.

Is a nuclear armed North Korea? Russia? US? Seems to be alot of tolerance for that there. A state a believe far more willing to put its entire population at nuclear apocalypse.

I actually don't know what that last sentence means. Sorry.
Would the world be better if no one had nukes? Maybe. Will it be better if everyone has nukes? Of course not.

First strike policy is not pursued by any state. Actually, I think that's bullshit. Every nuclear state is trying to develop a first strike plan. We already know such plans exist with "acceptable losses" and such. The good news is M.A.D. has been affective and no one has really figured out an acceptable first strike strategy, yet. The problem is people like money, and what one state uses as a deterrent another emerging state uses as ransom. Iran and other "rogue" states could not actually assure destruction of the US the way the Soviets could during the cold war. So M.A.D. doesn't apply. It's just a threat .. like the Somali pirates. Fear our power. Pay the ransom. Iran (like N. Korea) see nukes as an an extortion tool. A bargaining chip. A chance to wield power and control a spot at the table of world affairs. Some of this is "give in to us or we sell it to others".

We know there are groups out there though that don't fear any retaliation. They don't have a state, don't give a shit if their people live or die because they are on a "mission from God" (sorry Blue's Brothers) .. and those groups buy these technologies from rouge states. So any state emerging with that technology deserves international scrutiny. Obviously.

We can't let every nation on Earth become nuclear states. If you want to argue about the US, Russia, China, etc and other nations that already have them then the only way to solve the problem is to build a time machine. Those nations already have them now and the only way to deal with it is to draw down the numbers of weapons in the stockpiles. Not increase the threat to the entire world by adding new members to the club.

Lastly, I specifically said it was not the Iranian people in general that are the problem, but the hard line psychos in charge. Yet, don't forget there are demonstrations in the streets for Ahmadinejad too. So they say.

>> ^dannym3141:
What a dark day in world affairs when all it takes for us to consider something a witty retort is for a leader to answer a reporter's question with A SENSIBLE FUCKING ANSWER. Move along people, all this does is make me feel better about thinking obama is NOT a toolbag, and that bush was a toolbag inside a toolbox.
Churchill:
Lady Nancy Astor: Winston, if I were your wife, I’d poison your tea.
Churchill: Nancy, if I were your husband, I’d drink it
BOOM.
Bessie Braddock: Sir, you are drunk.
Churchill: And you, madam, are ugly. But in the morning, I shall be sober.
POW.
Young man (after seeing Churchill leave the bathroom without washing his hands): At Eton they taught us to wash our hands after using the toilet.
Churchill: At Harrow they taught us not to piss on our hands.
KAPOW.
Let's get some real fucking genius wit back into politics, can we? (no, this doesn't demonstrate churchill's genius, but trust me he was)


1) You're comparing Churchill's private conversations to a news conference by Obama.
2) Those quotes by Churchill are all unsourced. We don't know if they actually happened. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

What a dark day in world affairs when all it takes for us to consider something a witty retort is for a leader to answer a reporter's question with A SENSIBLE FUCKING ANSWER. Move along people, all this does is make me feel better about thinking obama is NOT a toolbag, and that bush was a toolbag inside a toolbox.

Churchill:
Lady Nancy Astor: Winston, if I were your wife, I’d poison your tea.
Churchill: Nancy, if I were your husband, I’d drink it

BOOM.

Bessie Braddock: Sir, you are drunk.
Churchill: And you, madam, are ugly. But in the morning, I shall be sober.

POW.

Young man (after seeing Churchill leave the bathroom without washing his hands): At Eton they taught us to wash our hands after using the toilet.
Churchill: At Harrow they taught us not to piss on our hands.

KAPOW.

Let's get some real fucking genius wit back into politics, can we? (no, this doesn't demonstrate churchill's genius, but trust me he was)

(DISCLAIMER THESE ARE NOT NECESSARILY DEMONSTRATIVE OF REALITY AND RYCHAN SNIFFS WOMEN'S BICYCLE SEATS......this is also unsourced!)

^ Did everyone above watch the same video as me?!?
what's with going off on a tangent.. his point here is true, you see it all of the time with nationalism, even sports teams.. people have an 'Us vs. Them' mindset which they struggle to even question. his point here is accurate, and the people above criticizing only do so because he unbiasedly presents how elements of all world affairs are screwy, and so is bound to hit a nerve at some point with pretty much everyone.

sifted
http://www.videosift.com/video/Congo-soldiers-explain-why-they-rape

i think the reasoning behind alot of the world affairs things i sift is misinterpretted. what i think is interesting about this video is that it shows how a supersitious world view creates a culture of war and rape. to me it is not a commentary on how terrible these men are, or this country is or anything like that. my world affairs posts are mostly culturally relative.


unsifted
http://www.videosift.com/video/Valentines-day-romance-special

this man is brilliant. an epic story teller. and an amazing poet. i appreciate everything about him. im wholly moved by his work. even the silly most seemingly assinine stories, you can feel the pain right below the surface, but its never the intent of the video to call attention to the pain. hes brilliant. i think the sift is not giving him nearly enough credit for how brilliant he is. a few friends have also called it to my attention that his stuff really is something you have to watch several times to catch how incredibly amazing it is. so go watch that video 8 times or so then tell me what you think.

More trouble for the * world affairs of international trade. And more good reason to buy local.

I'm flip-flopping on this issue. I've argued before that we don't need an econ channel because it's always part of politics, and I've yet to see a video about economics that wasn't also trying to make a political point about what government should be doing with/about the economy.

Unfortunately, it looks like it's going to be about like election08 -- very important, very loudly argued over, and won't be settled until everyone's beyond sick of it.

We need an economy channel.

Oh, and as creator of the News channel, volumptuous is 100% right about the idea of merging news and world affairs. Many things are news but not worldaffairs, and many things are worldaffairs that the news refuses to cover.