Ugh, I hate this "absurdist" "comedy".

Just reinforces the idea that doing stupid shit will make you famous somehow.

Wish that old man had taekwando sidekicked the SHIT out of him, right in the chest.

>> ^dgandhi:
When people know things about general subjects they tend to reference general knowledge to simplify conversations. If I had known at the outset that you are adverse to knowing anything but your sacred ideology I would have just called you a religious wing-nut at the outset and been done with it. At this point I'm in for a pound, and I'm going to make sure you have at least heard something other than you navel gazing nonsense before I am through with you. Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority. And instead of addressing the concept directly, you hide behind vapid arrogance and resort to personal attacks. Bravo!
>> ^dgandhi:
Okay, that clarifies a lot. You are actually arguing against an absurdist straw-man of any philosophy but your own. Please, since you are so keen on sourcing references, take a look at the manifesto, and tell me where you found that bit. I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.
>> ^dgandhi:
Nice selective editing, I like how you completely ignored that your question as stated made no sense.

Okay, if you want to pretend you are six, fine. NON-OBJECTS CAN'T BE CREATED, "production" is not an object, it's a concept, it has no physicality, just like the color blue it can't come/go to or from anywhere. If stating that fact tweaks your ideology then your position is weaker than I thought.
I never said it was an object. Actually, I've previously said objects are only representations of property.

production
–noun
1.the act of producing; creation; manufacture.
2.something that is produced; a product.
3.Economics . the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.

So where does production come from again?
>> ^dgandhi:
Yes you keep saying this, saying things does not make them so.

When I say something is a fact, that means that I can clearly demonstrate it. You have failed to even acknowledge that demonstrating your truth claims is relevant to their accuracy. Given your bizarre aversion, what exactly do you mean when you claim something is a fact? I did just clearly demonstrate it. Care to prove it false?
>> ^dgandhi:
So you own yourself, but you are not allowed to sell what you own? I'm going to need you to define own if you are going to use it like that. And I’m the one that’s six? One argument you ignore the literal meaning, the next you cling to it. Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?
>> ^dgandhi:

You realize that this whole discussion is displayed above right? You used my current property arrangement as an argument that your property ideal is right, that argument fails to differentiate between property and all the other things my social contract covers. You were sloppy, so just suck it up and state your case. I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract? I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.
>> ^dgandhi:
Since neither property nor theft have any meaning in the absence of social contract, all three claims are false because they require conditions to exist where they can not. This is not a problem for me, your problem is backing up the one of them you seem to think is true. And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?

>> ^marbles:
Then you wouldn’t need to quote other ideologies to make that point.

When people know things about general subjects they tend to reference general knowledge to simplify conversations. If I had known at the outset that you are adverse to knowing anything but your sacred ideology I would have just called you a religious wing-nut at the outset and been done with it. At this point I'm in for a pound, and I'm going to make sure you have at least heard something other than you navel gazing nonsense before I am through with you.

>> ^marbles:

Don’t feign ignorance. Marxism is based on the collective's right to the individual.


Okay, that clarifies a lot. You are actually arguing against an absurdist straw-man of any philosophy but your own. Please, since you are so keen on sourcing references, take a look at the manifesto, and tell me where you found that bit.

>> ^dgandhi:
Production does not come from anywhere, you might as well ask where blue comes from.

>> ^marbles:

Production comes from nowhere. Thanks for clearing that up.


Nice selective editing, I like how you completely ignored that your question as stated made no sense.

Okay, if you want to pretend you are six, fine. NON-OBJECTS CAN'T BE CREATED, "production" is not an object, it's a concept, it has no physicality, just like the color blue it can't come/go to or from anywhere. If stating that fact tweaks your ideology then your position is weaker than I thought.

>> ^marbles:

There’s no test needed, it’s inherent to human life. If I build a net, then I rightfully own it. If I catch fish with my net, then I rightfully own the fish.

Yes you keep saying this, saying things does not make them so.

When I say something is a fact, that means that I can clearly demonstrate it. You have failed to even acknowledge that demonstrating your truth claims is relevant to their accuracy. Given your bizarre aversion, what exactly do you mean when you claim something is a fact?

>> ^marbles:

Liberty is self-ownership. If you believe someone else can own you (e.g. selling yourself), then you don’t believe in liberty. Nice try though.

So you own yourself, but you are not allowed to sell what you own? I'm going to need you to define own if you are going to use it like that.

>> ^marbles:

No, I said you were wrong regardless of whether or not you accepted my property claims. And your current social contract is meaningless if you decide to violate my liberty.

You realize that this whole discussion is displayed above right? You used my current property arrangement as an argument that your property ideal is right, that argument fails to differentiate between property and all the other things my social contract covers. You were sloppy, so just suck it up and state your case.

Of course I know that your case, clearly stated, falls in on itself, I'm beginning to think that you know it too.

>> ^marbles:

Production doesn’t come from anywhere, remember? How about you prove this is true: If I steal something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.


Since neither property nor theft have any meaning in the absence of social contract, all three claims are false because they require conditions to exist where they can not. This is not a problem for me, your problem is backing up the one of them you seem to think is true.

Man, I read the title as 'Cannabis discuss the person they ate and why". I thought this was going to be some absurdist Onion thing about people getting high and thinking they were consumed by the cannabis, not the other way around.

I was eating a curry while watching them talk about eating organs.

On the whole, while interesting, this has been a total bummer. One star.

>> ^TheFreak:

>> ^Gallowflak:
And that's why I'm a transhumanist absurdist.

No kidding...I'm a post-humanist rationalist. I guess you and I must fight to the death now.


Bring your finest robot fists to the Parthenon.

>> ^Gallowflak:
And that's why I'm a transhumanist absurdist.


No kidding...I'm a post-humanist rationalist. I guess you and I must fight to the death now.

And that's why I'm a transhumanist absurdist.

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^Trancecoach:
>> ^gwiz665:
I did this once, but instead of people in front of me, it was world of warcraft... good times.

Most people do this -- in their 9 - 5 jobs.. tech workers, office workers, public drivers of buses, cabs, and so on.. We do a lot of sitting in our culture.

Okay.. then what makes this so special? I get what GF said about how she's setting a record.. but honestly, it's just sitting
There's nothing special about this, as you JUST said, most people do it for their jobs.


It gets to the question of what is art. The purpose of this could just as well be that she is drawing attention to the fact that our contemporary life, which includes a lot of sitting, has absurdist qualities, just as an art exhibition that draws attention to such a fact.

Hans Teeuwen is a great absurdist and controversial stand up comedian.
He was a good friend of Theo van Gogh who was murdered for making the controversial film Submission about Islam. At the unveiling of a statue to remember van Gogh he sang a song in which he mentioned these women and that's how he got on the show. Here you can see the speech he made (subtitled)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvOS9vsccJs

He is known for his absurdist comedy. There's not much of his work in English, but he recently did some performances in London, though there's not much video of it.
Here is his song Nostradamus. And another ridiculous song; "baseball bat, baseball bat, after a tsunami all the furniture is wet..."

^

1. X = X is mathematically equivalent, and does not conjure up images of absurdist objectivist utopias. I am suggesting a change in nomenclature, not arguing the validity of equivalence as an axiom.
   
   
2. You use a very broad argument to make a very specific point. Your real argument is hard, maybe impossible, to state in a concrete, non-self contradictory way. This weakens your argument substantially. If your argument, as stated, requires that we have no right to kill yeast, then you have a serious problem.
   
   
3. It still seems that you start with a phrase "Right to life" declare it axiomatic, and then, arbitrarily define it in a way which implicitly declares a number of new axioms. If you want to stick with your single axiom then you need to state, not that "Right to life" means X,Y,Z but show HOW it means these things. If you don't/can't show How they are derived, if you write it like a definition, then you are not deriving, but stating extra axioms non-explicitly. Not stating your axioms explicitly makes it look like you are hiding something.
   
   
4. see my comments on blog post I

Tags for this video have been changed from 'weird, focusmatic' to 'weird, focusmatic, absurdist' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'supermodels, meat, Hamburgers, Hamburgers, Potato Salad, watermelon' to 'supermodels, meat, Hamburgers, Hamburgers, Potato Salad, watermelon, absurdist, bewbs' - edited by calvados

j, if you insist on writing out absurdist scenarios with constantly changing parameters, then why not just write whatever ending you like.

Here is one you might like:

FBI Superagents: The Next Generation (Chicago)
Episode 17 - "The papercut is mightier than the pen"

Interior, Interrogation room. A bound prisoner sits in a chair with a light illuminating his face. Stout African American FBI chief Bernard B. Bythebooke sits, clearly frustrated, just a few feet away from the prisoner.

"The kid will die along with half of Chicago, and there is nothing you can do about it, FBI director Bythebooke" says the terrorist in a deep scary voice.

SLAM goes the door as devilishly handsome, rogue agent Dash Zeusman enters the room and says, "Not if I can help it terrorist scum"

Dash reaches for the pen in his notepad and thrusts it towards the terrorists head, only to be knocked away by Bythebooke, who says "As a working FBI agent, you are not permitted to use torture". Without missing a beat, Zeusman winks and says, "Then I resign" and jabs his pen into the terrorists ear canal.

The terrorist winces as blood shoots out his ear and says, "I have been trained for this very moment. I can withstand any torture you can dish out"

"O RLY?" says Zuesman, contorting his face to look like an owl.

Zuesman reaches for his note pad and brandishes it at the terrorist who laughs and says, "What are you going to do? Write me a nasty letter?"

Zeusman then begins to furiously cover the terrorists face with papercuts and says, "Bring me the salt!"

"Nooooo.... anything but that, I'll talk, I"LL TALK!", says the terrorist.

Jump cut to an abandoned saw mill. A young boy sits strapped to a huge nuclear bomb, festooned with brightly colored wires and a huge countdown clock. 20 terrorist ninjas with swords and machine guns surround the boy.

As the clock reaches 01.00.0000000....Zeusman busts through a wall and dispatches all of the ninjas with rusty saw blades and other improvised weapons. He diffuses the bomb at 00.00.00000000001.

The boys eyes light up and he says, "Agent Zeusman, you're the bomb"

They both break into laughter. Freeze frame. Roll credits.

THE END.

I guess the experts were wrong and you were right after all, jeremy. Either that or you watch too many movies.

I'm afraid I'm not, but eclectech would be an interesting person (Nice clip! Thanks for noticing to have on the sift. We need more eclecticism! And absurdistic black humour. And..


In reply to this comment by jonny:
I've been meaning to ask - is this yours? Are you eclectech?