WE as is "That's not the country we have decided we want to live in" Who is WE??

I don't agree with the WE. So there is no WE.

Anyway:

After reading you response it appears that you premise is this:

People are too inferior to make reasonable and logical decisions to succeeded in life so we need a benevolent government to provide for its people.

----------------Such a defeatist position.-------------------------



I believe that it is a basic instinct to want to succeed. That one naturally raises to the occasion and overcomes adversity. I believe in ones ability to rise to the occasion. To get knocked down and get back up. I believe in the human spirit.



AS for "How about we just remove all corporate welfare" Yep I agree and also get rid of mortgage deductions and all other government cheese.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sixth sense, the ring, the apartment, star wars, basic instinct, chtv' to 'sixth sense, the ring, the apartment, star wars, basic instinct, chtv, college humor' - edited by Boise_Lib

>> ^westy:

Lol this is pritty funny ,
I do however think its strange how culturally its ok to laff and beliitel fat people but it would be socially unacceptable to mock sum one that is anorexic.
Im pritty sure most people would rather not be fat/obise ( to the exstent that its crippling) and its due to phisoligy , depresoin , lack of education or other factors largely outside of the individuals control as to why they end up super fat.


I'm not referring to slightly overweight people here, disclaimer;

I'm sorry but i don't believe that. I'm fairly sure only a very small amount can blame physiology. Depression perhaps, but i'd say from my experience only a small fraction of depressed people turn to COPIOUS (and let's face it, that's what it would require) eating to help them out.

Lack of education i don't believe whatsoever - no one is gonna turn round and go "Hang on, what? Eating 3 buckets of KFC a day makes you fat? WHY DID NO ONE TELL ME! I'VE WASTED MY LIFE!" Haven't humans known about food (too much = fat, too little = starvation) almost as a basic instinct but certainly as a learned property of that thing we crave from birth? Could a human REALLY go for a day without reading, hearing or otherwise gleaning some knowledge of calories or weight gain in the current world?

Maybe i'm wrong, i find it as hard as anyone to lose weight but i just make a plan and stick to that plan. And the people who sit there (other than medical problems) i just think - not enough willpower. Just get up and do it.

@MaxWilder - i've had to lose weight in the past (due to depression, no less, but only because the tablets caused me to retain weight), and it's simple maths - if you burn more calories than you take in, you use up some of the energy that your body has stored (energy has to come from somewhere). Willpower is all you need, and exercise/diet becomes easier the longer you keep it up, it becomes habit. As for eating healthily - surely not? I can get food which would last me for 3 or 4 days of decent eating for the same price that it would cost me to get a KFC meal. And if we're talking a KFC meal suitable for someone weighing 350 pounds then i could feed myself for over a week i think. I don't think it's that hard unless you are one of the very few people who have something medically wrong with them.

Or am i wrong and "lack of willpower" is now seen as something that you can't help? Because i've always seen lack of willpower as lazyness. I feel almost like it's getting too easy to blame a label. I would get up and exercise but i've got <x>. Maybe you have willpower but it's not my fault, i have <y>. Am i a bastard for thinking that, no, i feel the same way, i don't want to move - humans like electrons want to be in their lowest energy state. But i just god damn do it anyway.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Music & dance are cultural expressions.
He's expressing his interpretation of the things that are important in his social environment.
It is a distinct cultural thing to go chat up big booty hoes at the Walmart.
Just like it was a distinct cultural thing to chat up wholesome christian girls at a malt shop.
I'm saying that this video & the culture it represents are only 'awful' by your ethnocentric standard.
>> ^legacy0100:
Chasing cheap booty is considered a cultural activity? I think you're way over-thinking this Genji.
It is what it is, a terrible rap video. That's the whole irony of our upvotes, the action is a statement saying that we recognize its awfulness, and not because we support the content.



I like that you made me think about this subject, Genji. You've presented me with a challenge, and forced me to gather my ideas and articulate myself. Thank you for this rare opportunity.

I've reached to the conclusion that you were right Genji, IT IS CULTURE. But it isn't just any culture, it's POVERTY CULTURE. This DOES NOT demand the same type of respect as some other cultures. Not all cultures should be considered equal, and I do believe I have a logical explanation.

So hear me out.

Robbing convenient stores or force raping other men can be considered a culture as well if you happen to live in a very violent ghetto or in prison. That is not a desirable environment to live in, but you would end up developing a subculture that specifically meets the needs of that particular environment. And now some may argue that these subcultures should also be held in the same regards as any other cultures. Well, I can respect the logic and reasoning of how these subcultures came to develop, but I still won't agree with the practices itself.

Let's go back to the contents of the video and its characteristics. Poverty culture generally tends to lean towards public nuisance and aggressively lascivious activities, which are actions that closely reflects our true basic instincts. But celebrating lack of control over your inhibitions and celebrating shopping at Wal-Mart isn't the highest standards one could have about themselves.

I'm sure there's a good reason why the types of dance and lyrics came to popularize in this particular town the video makers came from. And I can certainly understand that it is a culture sprouting from different environment and various life circumstances. But would I be supporting such low standards of self-control and standards of living? Hell no. I have higher living standards. Although everyone enjoys a fine booty rubbing against them, I can control my inhibitions and fight off the urge to dry hump someone in public.

All in all, this video reaks of low-class everything. Do keep in mind that this is not what all African American culture has to offer. This is the poor side of African American culture, just as white American culture would have Jersey Shore and Sarah Palin. I know plenty of African Americans who have much higher standards about themselves and their culture, and often speak out against the exact same thing this rap video is representing, and that is: Low Standards.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sixth sense, the ring, the apartment, star wars, basic instinct' to 'sixth sense, the ring, the apartment, star wars, basic instinct, chtv' - edited by Zifnab

I remember reading how Paul Verhoeven wanted to have an erect penis in Basic Instinct but this was one of the MPAAs big no-nos. This was also mentioned in the IFC documentary Indie Sex by other directors facing the same problems.

It's probably a dildo

Verhoeven is a real hit and miss director for me. Robocop was an out of the ballpark classic homerun. No doubt there. Total Recall less so, but still a damn awesome film (Quaaaaaid).

Starship Troopers I loved at the time, but increasingly like less as it's very pro military (And I know that people hate the interpretation compared to the book, but I haven't read it).

I can't really recall my reaction to Basic Instinct and have never seen Showgirls

But Robocop... true classic

text mtv.com:

A lot of things come to mind when the name Paul Verhoeven comes up. "Starship Troopers." "Total Recall." "RoboCop." "Basic Instinct." "Showgirls."

One thing that does not associate instantly with the talented filmmaker in my own mind, however, is Jesus Christ. And yet that's exactly who is the subject of Verhoeven's new book, "Jesus of Nazareth." The book takes a look at Jesus the man, considering how his words have been appropriated over hundreds of years. Verhoeven stopped by the office last week to chat with MTV's Josh Horowitz about the book and where it fits into other recent pop culture treatments of Jesus Christ. Check out video from the interview below then head over to MTV.com to check out the full report.

>> ^crillep:
I don't think this discussion is about the definition of fear but, I will try to clarify. If you do not pay your taxes, then you will most likely fear the IRS, or if you will, feel anxiety. Which is good, because this emotion tells you that you should've payed your taxes. Now if you are a man of faith, this same anxiety might help you to obey the rules of that particular faith. [1]
You say that cannot be, because you cannot prove these rules to be moral/right/whatever (at least thats how I read it). My response is, that that is besides the point, whether or not you agree with it, you have the same motivation to follow those rules. Let's just assume that people aren't following religions that they fundamentally disagree with. I certainly wouldn't. [2]
Moving on to your comment about right and wrong, you chose a good example when you mentioned murder. If your wife is murdered, and you want to strangle the SOB that did it, there are certainly a number of fears that could prevent you from doing so, including your faith. Take away these fears, and I don't think your response will be what is considered rational today. Again you can call it fear or anxiety or conscious intimidation, but there is a motivation there.
This is only one example, and certainly an atheist doesn't have to be a murderer in the above situation. Either way you are following a code of morals. So whether or not you are afraid of what you will become in your own eyes, or in Gods eyes, you still have a fear motivated response. Now obviously you can't say that your set of morals is better than some religion, because we agree there is no proving right and wrong. And hopefully this wall of text shows that fear can also be a good motivator for moral issues. NOT ALWAYS, BUT SOMETIMES. [3]
I think that people are having so much fun pointing out the flaws in various religions, that they have forgotten some very basic facts. Like the fact that freedom of religion is something that we are incredibly lucky to have. And the fact that so many people have some form of belief system (80% of the world in some polls) shows that it's not just bogus. It's a dominating force in our world that matters to alot of people and they should be treated with the same respect as everyone else. [4]

Finally, what I would like to stress the most is that it is EASY to be a religious person who also believes in science, evolution, the works. One does not cancel out the other. I'm neither religious nor atheist, but I respect everybodies beliefs. When it comes to atheists I think there should be less focus on bickering with with various religions and more focus on getting religion out of the schools and out of the goverment, that's a cause I can support. [5]
Finally I should mention that you didn't deserve the comment about me lecturing you earlier gwiz, but it pisses me off that dbarry3 gets a -6 rating for critizing the video, and you get +10 for saying that fear isn't a factor when it comes to gay marriage. Thankyou captain obvious. [6]

I'm gonna cut as much to the chase as I can, so I don't make too much of a wall of text too (as I usually do).

[1] I suppose I have separated fear from this feeling, since my definition of fear is more basic than that, which is why my "fear of tiger/government" is vastly different, in my opinion. One is a personal, emotional response, the other is a conscious decision, weighing your actions vs. the consequences, thinking it through. If we must use the term fear, then I think the distinction between "basic fear" and "conscious fear" is a good one to make.

[2] I don't say that it cannot be, but that it should not be. I feel I need to make another distinction here, because there are different types of actions and associated motivators.

Now, I don't think that an action can be inherently good or bad, any judgment can only come from someone's point of view. However, actions are deemed good/bad by yourself, from your own perspective, of course, and that's what I mean when I talk about good/bad actions now.

If you avoid an action that is bad, purely for the reason that you fear what might happen if you do the action, then you are indeed working from fear, and I think this is a bad thing; a bad motivator. It is far more rewarding if you make a conscious deliberation of the action, instead of responding to fear. To drop my own sci-fi quote, fear is the mind-killer (if you know where it's from, I instantly like you more). In the same vein, a good action should be done because you deem it to be good, not because you are told to do it by whatever external medium - you should have some sort of moral center that you use to weigh your options, not just act out of fear of repercussions.

[3] Anger and passion, like fear, kills the mind and make you do irrational things. The example indeed show that, and there are instances where the mind is disabled and you more basic instincts kick in, in these instances it's a good thing that we do have some fear of what will happen to us, if we do an action. You are indeed correct that here, the fear is a good de-motivator to avoid an action. But, like I said, it shouldn't be - the mind should not be disabled, the conscious decision to not do the action is a far better motivator, since you will know not to do it, because it is a bad thing to do, both from your own perspective and many others'. The developed mind should not look to external judgments for its actions, it should be able to decide it for itself. Of course, we do not have any a priori knowledge of morals, but we do have critical thinking, and we can weigh options without consulting gods, laws or rules. Thrusting the judgment away from yourself to some higher power is in the end a form of moral cowardice, in my eyes. That's not to say that you should say that your way is the right way always, and everyone else is wrong - but if you are critical of your own reasoning too, you will be able to weigh the options justly. Many people have tremendous troubles with this and are blind of their own faults and shortcomings (myself included).

[4] Freedom of religion is indeed a good thing to have. If we didn't have that, we would not be nearly as technologically and sociologically advanced as we are now, but the fact that many people believe in a thing shows nothing. Many people used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. In itself the belief in something is worthless as even circumstantial evidence. Faith is, regrettably, a powerful force in our world still, but science and enlightenment is steadily pushing it away. And thank goodness for that. Beliefs should only be respected if they can be justified; politics are not very respected either, but I think politics deserve more respect than religion still. Just because you see your own faith as a holy cow, doesn't mean that we should not question it. If it can withstand it, then good for you and it, but if it cannot then it's not worth believing.

[5] No. This is just plain false. You have to make incredible leaps of logic to believe in both religion and science, because they do cancel each other out on many, many points. I will go so far as to say, that if you are an intellectually honest person it is not at all possible to be a religious scientist. You will not be looking at your religion with the same skeptical eyes as science and the world around you, or it would be discarded. It does not stand up to challenge and is in the end a waste of your time. Faith is always blind, or it wouldn't be faith.

I am also not convinced that you can make a third separation of religious/atheist/other. You're either religious or you are not, if you are not, then you are by definition an atheist (or non-religious). The word Atheist has gotten a stigma when the religions have tried to strike back through places like Fox News, where Atheism is upheld as a belief-system of its own, which it is not. Whatever word you put on it, you can either believe in God or not, there is really no middle-ground, other than not having an opinion at all, and then I would clump you with the non-religious as well, like we do with fairies. You may not have considered the actual existence of fairies, but not having an opinion is far close to disbelief than belief. One is active, the other is passive. I respect people, with as much respect as they deserve, but I do not respect their beliefs, and we damn well shouldn't either. Tolerance goes both ways, and they don't tolerate us - turning the other cheek isn't my bag, I'll punch back if they slap me. This is the exact place where your quote entirely applicable:

"The first duty of every person is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth! It is the guiding principle on which our society is based. Now, if you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don't deserve to have the freedoms provided by our society!"



http://www.videosift.com/video/Dr-House-on-Religion-016

If anyone, I exert myself as much as possible in the name of truth, more people should. I present the truth from my perspective, but as objectively as I can.

[6] I think debarry3's downvotes are as much directed at his form as his substance. It is a passive-aggressive attack on everyone who upvoted this video, and that is not appreciated. His argument for god-fearing is not really a good one either, so combined the downvotes were inevitable.
Making an obvious observation is not always a bad thing, like the 9 votes indicate. Like earlier, I didn't say that fear was not a factor, but that it should not be a factor. I'm certain some pious people fear the gays and their merry ways.

[7] I fail at not making a wall of text...

An icepick? Hmm, watching a bit too much Basic Instinct are we?

“Obviously those of the Mormon superstition have not been enlightened about the great, holy, and sacred Flying Spaghetti Monster. Be saved from DEATH! Be saved from being EVIL! Be a GOOD person and live FOREVER in Spaghetti HEAVEN!”


My studies at Boston College in Theology of the major religions convinced me that the primary reason religions can successfully exist is because they promise a way to escape death. This is utilization of the instinct to survive. Most religions deriving from the Middle East also heavily utilize a constant "judgment" by a "higher power" which can withdraw the possibility of escaping death, therefore conveying the death sentence, if the "rules" of the religion are violated. These "rules" almost always require submission to higher "spiritually" developed humans, thereby creating authority and power in the religion, which assures growth and solidity of the religion, and the imperative to convince non-believers to believe in the religion (and hence in its' rules) in order to escape death.

The aspect of religion that is, to me, so incredible, is that they are all based upon a history of occurrences in a far distant past, a history that has changed multiple times in its' travel to the present. Each change was primarily made to further empower the leaders of the religion at the time of the change.

Present day “proofs” of the existence of “higher power” are inane and “believers” present as proof intangible totally subjective experience. If there would be a “higher Power” which is omnipotent, that “higher power” must, considering the suffering of human beings of the world, be horrendously uncaring and evil.

My objection to religion is that the "rules" it imposes inhibits free will and instills shame, fear, and guilt. Freely experiencing such basic instincts as sexuality and enjoying the freedom to be ones’ unique self (without being constantly judged) are penalized with the death sentence. Religion assumes that humans are basically evil and MUST be controlled by religion or they will be thieving, murdering, animals, devoid of empathy and incapable of agape (which, in my mind, seems to describe the “omnipotent higher power” should one exist).

I believe writing LONG sentences is NOT evil!!

Upvote because this reminds me of Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct

India don't have youth protection? Madness? No! total absence of natural infant protection instinct. Theorically, even the more deranged parent will instictally save the kid. I wonder wath in the world can have shut down the basic instinct of the parent. Bah! I have perhaps a too naturalist vision of human nature.