Again, good job spreading chaos.

I'm a graduate from two universities, so I've had my share of 'book-learning'.

You see, my nom de plume means i spread light where I go, whereas yours means you spread chaos, with the efficiency of a machine.

A machine spreading chaos is likely to believe everything it hears, without discerning the real facts, which are very easy to find.

But here is my question: does Kristen Schaal make as much money as Jon Stewart? If not, why? And was she part of the study? Ok, now i get it.

You know, one could probably make a film along the lines of this video. A comedy disaster film, where The Gay gets unleashed upon the world, and all devolves into chaos. The few people that find themselves immune are suddenly outcasts / freaks in a fully gayed-up world. Shenanigans ensue.

Funny you ask questions but 'aren't looking for an answer', maybe because you feel you already have an answer you feel is right? Feelings can be wrong, you've proven that.

Morality is important because people live together, and without morality you get only chaos. Morality, and/or empathy have evolutionary benefits and are behavioral evolutionary constructs. Those without it are shunned from/by society and so don't reproduce as often as those with it. That's just one difference it makes, but a big one.

So, you know these things about yourself, but if someone else points them out they're a bully? Thicken your skin if you intend to stay on the internet is my best advice, that and read your posts as if they were written TO you before hitting 'submit', if you do that honestly you'll find you display the same behavior you complain about.
I point out to you that @offsetSammy made a great point in his second paragraph you ignored completely in order to call him names.

thanks chaos!

that was another one of my playlists
that'd gone dormant for far too long.

Coming at this from the perspective of academic philosophy I think the truth of the matter is ultimately very simple (however the details can be almost infinitely complex and diverse in how we apply them).

Simply put it appears impossible to demonstrate any kind of ultimate ethical authority or perfect ethical principles objectively.

One can certainly assert them, but they would always be subject to the problem of underdetermination (no facts, only interpretations) and as such subjective.

Even strictly humanist systems of ethics like concequentialism and deontology are at their core based on some arbitrary assumption or rule e.g. minimising harm, maximising pleasure, setting a universal principle, putting the concequences before the intention etc. etc.

As such I think the only honest and objective absolute moral principle is "Nothing is true and everything is permitted" (the law of the strong). All else can only truly be supported by preference and necessity. We do not "Know" moral truth, we only appear to interpret and create it.

This being the case it is the opinion of myself and a great many post modern philosophers that ethics is essentially a specialised branch of aesthetics. An important one still, but none the less it is still a study of preference and beauty rather than one of epistemological truth.

By this logic one could certainly argue that the organic "Humanist" approach to ethics and morality as outlined in this video seems infinitely preferable to any sort of static absolute moral authority.

If morality is at its core just a measure of the degree of thought and extrapolation one applies to maximising preferable outcomes then the "humanist" seems like they would have an inherent advantage in their potential capacity to discover and refine ever more preferable principles and outcomes. A static system by its very nature seems less able to maximise it's own moral preferences when presented by ever changing circumstances.


However I'm about to kind of undermine that very point by suggesting that ultimately what we are calling "humanism" here is universal. i.e. that even the most static and dictatorial ethical system (e.g. Wahhabism or Christian fundamentalism) is still ultimately an expression of aesthetic preference and choice.

It is aesthetically preferable to a fundamentalist to assert the absolute moral authority and command of God and while arguably less developed and adaptable (and thus less preferable by most Humanist standards), it is still at it's core the exercise of a preference and as such covered by humanism in general.

i.e. if you want to be a "humanist" then you should probably be wary of placing ultimate blame for atrocities on specific doctrines, as the core of your own position is that morality is a human condition not a divine one. i.e. religion did not make people condone slavery or start wars, human behaviour did.

We can certainly argue for the empirical superiority of "humanism" vs natural authority by looking at history and the different behaviours of various groups & societies. But really what we are arguing there is simply that a more considered and tolerant approach appears to make most people seem happier and results in less unpleasant things happing.

i.e. a preference supported by consensus & unfortunately that doesn't give us any more moral authority than a fanatic or predator beyond our ability to enforce it and persuade others to conform.

"Nothing is true and everything is permitted", "right" and "wrong" can only be derived from subjective principles ergo "right" and "wrong" should probably instead be replaced with "desirable" and "undesirable" as this seems closer to what one is actually expressing with a moral preference.

I completely agree with the sentiment in the video, more freedom of thought seems to mean more capacity to extrapolate and empathise. The wider your understanding and experience of people and the world the more one appears to recognise and appreciate the shared condition of being human.

But I must never forget that this apparent superiority is ultimately based on an interpretation and preference of my own and not some absolute principle. The only absolute principle I can observe in nature seems to be that chaos & conflict tend towards increasing order and complexity, but by this standard it is only really the conflict itself which is moral or "good/right" and not the various beliefs of the combatants specifically.

So it occurred to me, as I watched this, that although this makes perfect sense and it's pretty much how I see things as well, does everyone think like this.
I've seen the people who claim that morality comes from religion, and that without religion, we wouldn't know right from wrong.

So, that's when I wondered:
Are there people who actually don't know right from wrong? Are they missing that piece in their brains that limit their comprehension of empathy. That feeling when they are doing something wrong. There are no thoughts of doubt, no pangs of guilt. No recognition that they are hurting others, even if just emotionally.

And, if so, are these the people that need a God? Are all those god fearing people good members of the community just because they "fear a God"
Without a god to tell them, would they end up being the most unruly people on the planet? Is it religion that is keeping them at bay? Is chaos and anarchy the result of no religion? Not because we need it, but because without a GOD, certain people (currently religious) would have no compass, and would they feel free to randomly hurt, kill, steal and otherwise be the lowest of humanity?

Just some thoughts....

I liked the way the Reuters article closed:

It was not clear what support the German position, which appeared to take no account of the political change in Greece, will have in the wider euro zone talks.

I went against your advice and had a look at a DW article on the subject, and I see what you mean, there is quite a big disparity between the accepted position in the article and anything else I've read from outside Germany. I am now also left wondering how on earth any compromise could be made acceptable to German politicians, and then sold to the public. Since Ireland and Portugal are starting to recover despite The Austerity, it's entirely possible that the usual suspects will say "Look! It works!". They do have much more debt now though...

I can understand a certain aversion to excessive inflation, after the chaos caused by hyperinflation in 1923, but you'd think that if they remember that then they'd also remember where that led (and particularly with the rise of Golden Dawn).

As for Italy, it has somehow managed to muddle along on the edge of disaster for so long that I'm starting to think it can keep doing so forever.

I don't believe that it is what most people think. Most people believe in God, for starters, according to every poll ever taken on the subject, at least here in the US.

The mystics, who deserve far more credence than stage actors, say that God created the universe because an eye can not see itself, nor a sword cut itself. For God to know himself, the universe was created, so that God could see all of the possibilities. And one of those possibilities is imperfection, or at least what we see as imperfection, such as people who kill or bacteria that makes us sick.

The programmer programs the computer and he doesn't always know how it's going to turn out. The artist throws paint on the canvas but a certain chaos theory enters into it.

At any rate, to see the Universe and not realize the intelligence behind it is just sad. At the least a thinking person should investigate all aspects of it.

To ignore the intelligence behind the universe is just stubbornness. How do you maintain your anger at God when you don't even believe in God?

I got news for you. If you are mad at God, then you believe in God. If you think God fails your standard, then where did that standard come from?

i am with @ChaosEngine on this one.

his "short skirt" analogy,from an absolute moral standpoint is correct.

so i am reading most of these comments in the abstract:"while it is a shame how you were raped and those men are deplorable and vicious...you REALLY should not have gone out wearing that skirt".

and as @entr0py noted,it comes across as mysoginistic.

was that the intent?
probably not,but it does explain chaos becoming so frustrated with this thread.something that should be self-evident is being buried under good intentions and a healthy dose of double standards.

as for this being her "revenge"...
i dont see it as revenge but rather as her recapturing her dignity and self-determination.

basically..fuck the haters.
and on that note i say "well played miss holten,well played".

Having said all that, I think her chosen response is ultimately counter productive generally, even if it does make her feel a little better about herself. The proactive solution is no digital naked pics. But that will take us deeper into moral contemplations, and I think Mr. Chaos has enough on his plate with my previous comment.

There are plenty of people who believe all cops act this way. Read online comments and you will find them quite easily. And your statement that responsible people find ways of dealing with stress w/o losing it on occasion is simply naive. I'll bet you're the first to agree that PTSD is a real syndrome with soldiers. it's the same for cops. A lot of people deal with assholes you said. Well, cops deal with them, get puked on by them, see their blood and the chaos they create, slip in their piss and get their spit on their uniforms.

Newtboy posts all these videos but he'll tell you that he doesn't believe all cops act this way. He is rather like Mr. DeBlasio, who wants to say one thing out of one side of his mouth, then say something quite different out of the other side. He is no fan or admirer of the police, he creates this scenario that all cops are power hungry racists and you end up with dead cops because people with mental problems see this picture and extrapolate it to include all cops everywhere.

i have zero desire to see trance banned,that was never my intent for calling him out.
i simply wanted him to acknowledge his emotional response to a disagreement on a video he posted,
that the disagreement was with the video NOT him..personally.

i know this will only further derail this thread but i think it should be said.

a video is not a representation of the person.
being called out does not automatically translate to dislike of the person being called out.

a few weeks ago i did a little experiment with clickbait titles and @ChaosEngine totally called me on it.which gave me a nice chuckle and chaos was in the right but interestingly enough,the experiment worked.that video got 10 times the views it normally would in the same allotted time.

there was another video i posted where i didnt do my due diligence and it turned out to be a total fraud and @speechless (quite politely) called me out on that video and i was forced to apologize in shame.

does all this translate to chaos and speechless disliking me?
of course not.
i got busted using clickbait methodology and not doing my homework.while a tad embarrassing,being called out taught a lesson and a bit of humility.

point: i was the better for it.

trances targeted downvoting was an emotional response and he was behaving foolishly,but make no mistake..trance is no fool.he just took my analysis and criticism personally and responded emotionally.

no animals were harmed,all the puppies are still cute and kitty videos are more popular than ever.

human beings are sometimes irrational and emotional.trance should not be banned for behaving like a human being.

how can some of you NOT see the obvious?
you think this is about law and permits?
fucking seriously???

this is a politically targeted strategy to remove the eye-sore that is a homeless person from the tender eyeballs of over-privileged fuckheads.
the ever changing laws are CREATED to do just that,and chaos is so right,most cops HATE having to be the ones enforcing these demeaning,dehumanizing laws.

at least hard-core right wing nutbags have the balls to openly despise the poor,but treehugging liberals just cant stomach seeing the wretched openly walking their streets.
they know they exist...
they fret,weep and wring their hands for those poor souls but to actually SEE them?
well,that kind of reality is just too much for their tender sensibilities.
so they criminalize being poor.

hypocritical assholes..the lot of them.

i have lived all over,from boston to san diego and broward county is,by far,the richest i have ever lived in.

but it is mainly a tourist city,so they cant have bums sleeping on the sidewalk or begging for change at the intersections.what would the vacationing swedish family think?
i mean...the horror..the absolute horror!

so they create laws to criminalize the poor in order to sweep them under the rug.just like your momma used to make you clean your room before aunt florence came over.

it is morally bankrupt and ethically repugnant.

god DAMN this pisses me off to no end!
/rant OFF

safety issues?
permits?
fuck me,the dumb is strong here...........

you would lose that bet.

look,i dont see anybody here denying that harassment exists and chaos posted that this woman is receiving rape threats from some serious twisted fuckers.

which just boggles my fucking mind.

maybe i am getting too old and no longer get the plot.
maybe the younger generation are so disconnected from each other that ANY form of interaction in real life is viewed as an invasion.(ironic due to just how much more connected we all are nowadays).which is a serious tragedy in my opinion.all those lost opportunities to connect and interact with another human being.

being polite and respectful should never be stigmatized as harassment.

now,as yogi pointed out,if somebodies body language and demeanor reveal a person in thought or not receptive to any interactions,then of course dont interfere in that persons personal space.

but thats not harassment,thats just annoying and rude.the opposite of polite and respectful.

if we are walking down the street and in passing we make eye contact..im gonna acknowledge you,because to me that is being polite.if you pass with your shoulders hunched and your eyes are fixated on the pavement then we shall pass in silence.

now i will make a bet.
i bet attractive people get far more attention in this manner than lesser attractive people.

but if you still feel any interactions from a human being you do not know personally is harassment,then you are dismissing a HUGE factor in what makes us all human.

what a weird perspective.
it appears everyone else has become the "other" to be cautious and fearful of.
i am feeling incredibly old right now.
and sad...........