>> ^messenger:

I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.
You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.
Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.

It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.

Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.

Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.

If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.

I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.

Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?

Sorry to bust your bubble, but infinite growth is simply not possible, nor is it desirable. For economic growth you need demographic growth (just look at how EU keeps sucking in immigrants to counterbalance the non-renewing fertility rate... it's definitely not out of kindness of heart). More people = more mouths to feed, but also exchanging cultivated land for inhabited land. Moreover, even if we manage to have 100% renewable power, much of the material we use (metals, gases, etc) are of a finite nature and rapidly depleting. Recycling is great, but can never be 100% effective, and even if it could, there are elements (think helium) that once they're gone they're gone, basta.

In the long run, we can only have a sustainable society if the growth imperative is scratched out of our mentality.

>> ^artician:

>> ^hpqp:
As long as our society is built around the imperative of growth (economic, demographic), we will continue to irretrievably destroy ourselves. The equation is simple: infinite possibility for growth - finite resources = self-destruction.

The thing is, renewable resources = infinite resources. I really believe infinite possibility for growth can be sustained, but what we have here is irresponsible growth. It's not growth as much as a viral consumption.
I think the next step is to start getting some names. Company names, shareholder names, CEO names. Find the people responsible for making these decisions, and education or kill them. Wait... what?
Anyway, this will never stop unless you confront individuals directly. It's very rare that indirect opposition (pacifist movements, ghandi/king jr. civil rights) works. So rare that I've given up on it for such dire circumstances.
Dear America: still feeling all that white guilt from the complete genocide of several hundred thousand indigenous natives on the norther continent? Well it's still happening right now. Now's your chance to make up for it.

The problem is a bit more complex than this. Our society has cultivated a lower class which loves to complain but is far too distracted with their xboxes, mcdonalds, nascars, and other drivel to really band together in a cohesive way. Only through education can the ants rise up and effect REAL change. Having a leader (of whatever party) get up there and spout platitudes about "change" or "values" or whatever other bullshit our politicians are trying to sell us isn't going to really change anything. As long as the lowest common denominator of greed on both a high and low scale drives our motives, we aren't going to really move forward.

If the democrats, the republicans or the extremists on both sides want to really change anything, invest in education. Period. Then this obese lazy country will get off their couches and out of the buffet line and start thinking about what really needs to happen in this country to take us to the next level.

Honesty has nothing to do with morals at all. If he attacks the left, and believes the programs are doomed to fail, then that is his preference. If I tell a woman, "Your children are fat, stupid and selfish," she will flip out--even if done nicely. Even if done to save the child's life and give the child a chance.

Honesty is a cruel thing, but is necessary. Ron Paul is honest, even when he doesn't know he is being honest (Which annoys me.)

America will burn as a nation so long as we remain overweight (You can buy soda with food stamps...lovely huh?) We will burn as long as we promote confidence over humility. We will burn as long as we think 9/11 just magically fucking happened. As long as we prop up corporations with corporate-friendly laws. As long as we think we deserve something for nothing. Our culture is useless and will falter, regardless of stimulus, universal healthcare, welfare, WIC, Unemployment insurance, etc. I favor most of these programs for the needy, but then in this culture it does not good, does it? Because we are entitled and greedy.

Paul admits to these--even if every other politician is to busy sucking every Americans cocks and teats to admit it.

Also, Paul supports liberal causes, just in personal choice. This is not dishonest; perhaps stupidity, but not dishonesty.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Why is he then best friends with Kucinich? Why does everything have to be personal? Can't he just respect Stewart's fascinating honesty? And with that, the part of Stewart's honesty that incorporates and shows off Paul's honesty?

Working backwards:

1. Paul isn't honest.
   
2. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks "honesty" is in direct conflict with being liberal, or supporting Democrats.
   
3. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks Stewart is "honest" because he attacks the Democrats, which apparently Paul thinks is rare for the left to do.
   
4. Paul's "respect" for this "honesty" is further amplified by the fact that Stewart gives him a platform to spread his ideology unchallenged to a new audience.
   
5. Paul has the same "respect" for Kucinich -- Kucinich often attacks the Democrats from the left, and therefore Paul has "respect" for Kucinich's "honesty."
   

Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.
He's willing to cultivate "friendships" with these people because it serves his own nefarious agenda-driven hackery. The upshot of what he's saying to his fellow libertarians at Mises is "go out and cultivate friendships like this, to help further our side in the battle against liberalism."
On the surface, it sounds like he's saying nice things about Stewart. But if you really parse what he's saying, then it sounds pretty sick and twisted.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Why is he then best friends with Kucinich? Why does everything have to be personal? Can't he just respect Stewart's fascinating honesty? And with that, the part of Stewart's honesty that incorporates and shows off Paul's honesty?


Working backwards:

1. Paul isn't honest.
   
2. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks "honesty" is in direct conflict with being liberal, or supporting Democrats.
   
3. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks Stewart is "honest" because he attacks the Democrats, which apparently Paul thinks is rare for the left to do.
   
4. Paul's "respect" for this "honesty" is further amplified by the fact that Stewart gives him a platform to spread his ideology unchallenged to a new audience.
   
5. Paul has the same "respect" for Kucinich -- Kucinich often attacks the Democrats from the left, and therefore Paul has "respect" for Kucinich's "honesty."
   

Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.

He's willing to cultivate "friendships" with these people because it serves his own nefarious agenda-driven hackery. The upshot of what he's saying to his fellow libertarians at Mises is "go out and cultivate friendships like this, to help further our side in the battle against liberalism."

On the surface, it sounds like he's saying nice things about Stewart. But if you really parse what he's saying, then it sounds pretty sick and twisted.

You see this? This is how serial killers are cultivated in our society. Nice going.

Well, I'm honored to be in the running.

And it's not for nothing that a long and versatile tongue is not simply a function of wit and sarcasm, but its very shape and form has, indeed, been associated with enlightenment, with Buddhahood, as is cultivated through yoga, tantra, and other forms of kundalini meditation.. and evidenced by glossalalia, "speaking in tongues," quali, "Song of Solomon kisses like wine," etc. etc...

Even the fetal development of the oral cavity is due, in part, to the secretion of sweet-tasting muco-polysaccharides from the “heavenly” cranial vault in the newly forming roof of the fetal mouth.. known for millenia within Hindu traditions, and only recently suggested by scientific research.

A colleague of mine states that the physiological basis of spiritual experience -- the body's "natural LSD-Ecstasy" with no side effects, only natural maturities -- constitutes a long tongue and versatile tongue.

Personal experience with global warming: rolling forward the charts on when fruit trees are flowering and the fruit is ripe.

Also, long term studies are projecting that California will have 50% of the necessary 'chill' for nut trees to be cultivated in 40 years, and 0% by 2100. Billions of dollars of industry shifting to who-knows-what.

Lots of atheists are spiritual; they simply do not believe in God, or the common concept of a singular, all powerful, all knowing super being.

Yes, I have read a good percentage of atheists pray. So who or what are they praying to and what do they expect as a response? Also, where does a spirit come from if not from God?

No. A person only has to say "show me your god" and if you can't do that, then they can rationally deduce that your god does not exist.

Whether you consider it reasonable or rational to reject a persons claim about God because they cannot provide photographs isn't the point. The point is, to categorically state there is no God is a faith based claim because you would need to be omniscient to say that definitively.

Don't hang the Holocaust on the atheists. That's a real cheap shot. Atheists had nothing to do with the Holocaust. The Holocaust was perpetrated by people who believed in God, and believed that He justified their actions for the "greater good."

I wasn't attempting to hang it on anyone, but if you want to argue about it, Hitler wasn't religious:

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

Your claim of an "absolute morality" is itself a relative concept in the sense that it is your definition of an absolute morality versus somebody else's.

Unless it is enforced by an authority, it will always be relative.

The Golden Rule is a form of morality that has nothing to do with a belief in God.

Doing the right thing should always take into account "the greater good" for all mankind and our world; that does not require a belief in God.

What is the greater good and how do you determine it? If someone disagrees, how do you determine who is right? To note, I don't consider someone who doesn't believe in God to be immoral. I believe that everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong.

The word on the street is: He was cultivating a snitch.

Thank-you. I also edited my comment as you were replying.

I don't think it's sufficient to say "what if the tables were turned". It's a completely different context. Angua1's link above illustrates this fallacy. I agree that calling a girl cute is relatively harmless (relative to what?), and given the nature of the sift, where we're encouraged to make our videos as a appealing and watchable as possible in order to win votes, it makes sense that we are going to try to use sex appeal. Can you, however, acknowledge that it must be frustrating for women to always be judged through the lens of their appearance and sexual desirability, rather than for the skills and talents that they have worked hard to cultivate? This girl's routine should be enough to impress us, regardless of her "cuteness".

>> ^MarineGunrock:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/StimulusMax" title="member since May 29th, 2010" class="profilelink">StimulusMax - you make very valid points. I think at this stage in the thread, we're diluting the basic point that someone has pointed out - men are visual animals, and in the grand scheme of things, calling a girl "cute" isn't that big of a deal. If a woman were to post a video of a "cute" guy doing this same thing, I (and probably most people) wouldn't get offended, though honestly, it probably would not get a whole lot of votes, simply because the poster emphasized the attractiveness of the guy, making it seem like it's the predominant quality of the video.

As far as the press releases and lack thereof--how often do you hear about illegal chemicals being used against Palestine protesters? Or how about the wikileaks child-selling contracts? Oh, you hear the mundane garbage they want to feed America, because they are corporations selling a product. However, we should distinguish between what is "in the news" (i.e., articles Justin Beiber's haircut, Sara Palin's stupid emails) and what is actually "newsworthy."

The next point, one that makes me infinitely sad, is that AMERICA IS CORRUPTION. *Sorry, for some reason I cannot bold shit, so I made it caps...

Just take a sampling of the corruption. Parents, Teachers (Hi, I just had sex with your kid and won't do any jail time because I am a woman,) Judges, Politicians, Medical Professionals, Oil Exs, (A joke, we expect that,) Priests, Cops, and pretty much everyone else. Are these abuses of power that are unexpected? Yes. I cannot fathom, least expect, a father throwing his child from a moving car because the kid wet his bed--but it happens. We should expect it by now.

In light of that, excluding cops, for the reasons that it is not right, unexpected, different, and abuse of power, etc., seems preposterous to me.

Thanks Ry and Hp and Gun and MrFrisk, and even though I am tired from a lot of work and playing with my children, I figure I will respond half asleep because those were well put.

Another big note; I am afraid of the cultural war issue more than everything. Hp, you said what I fear the most--in essence at least. That the Law is afraid of suits and using defense that anyone would be entitled to. That when the law does use force, it will be condemned. That when a officer dies, certain parts of a town rejoice.

A boy was shot a while back and a city next to mine got in an uproar (But the officer used sound judgement, yet that matters not. Just white on black, cop on kid/with gun...) That is how fanaticism starts. It is rarely a huge leap (Like Sept 11th) that starts a cultural shift to hatred. The Muslim nations that are extremely oppressive cultivate the hatred with fear and more hatred.

(And that also goes for people hating homosexuals, race, etc. I fear for that just the same. Now it's bedtime before I start making sense.)

I reread every comment you made in this thread, and at no point until now did you assert that the peasant is the king's servant, much less his slave as you have now suggested. Not until I suggested that the peasant is in fact free to think as well as act did you suggest that the peasant was a slave. Even if we assume that the peasant is in fact a slave, you have still not demonstrated that his mental condition is in any way relevant to his ability to "perform his job", or "provide for his family", which I have proposed as his motivation for working, irrespective of his belief in an actual king.

You could have tried reading the original comment, which stated:

Now lets say one day you refuse to work, refuse to submit to his authority. You say to yourself, I don't believe this King is really real; I've never seen him with my own eyes.. This a conspiracy, I will just do whatever I want. You even decide to go into the towns square to tell others to stop working for this King. That it is a fools errand, the King is a hoax you say. You're wasting your lives when you could live for yourself! Yet, when the King gets wind of this he tells his soldiers "Fetch my ungrateful servant and bring him in front of me"

The peasants life is intrinsically tied to the King. The peasant is not just working to earn a wage, but to be freed from his obligation..to be freed from slavery basically..not only that but to attain what he could never attain on his own, for himself and his family: a future. Without the reward, the peasant would have to eke out a subsistance existence until he died. His motivation is not a living wage, it is freedom from having to produce. The only way he can do this is by living a life pleasing to the King. The King expects obedience, ie the peasant has to work. The King expects results, ie the work has to be satisfactory and yield a good harvest. The King expects gratitude, ie the work is not proportional to the reward.

Nothing the peasant could ever do in his entire life could earn that reward. Upon receiving the reward, the peasant will certainly be grateful. If he didn't believe the reward existed though, he would simply hate the King for having to work for him. He would desire to flee the Kings authority and live for himself. He would seek out the company of people who felt the same way about the King and form conspiracies against Him. He would recruit other people and say the King was unjust, that there was no reward.

Now say the King had mercy on these peasants who were rebelling against him. He was a good King and cared about his subjects. He only wanted to reward them ultimately, but neither could he force them to believe his promise. So, for a time he let the peasants have a piece of his land to cultivate. They constantly gave him problems, either by raiding his stocks (because they could not sustain production for themselves), or encouraging others into disobedience. He was occassionally forced to kill some of the worst offenders, for the sake of the stability of the Kingdom.

His plan was to ultimately move everyone onto His land, after enough was stored up so no one had to work any longer. He would send emissaries into the places of rebellion, to encourage the peasants to return. He offered complete forgiveness for their crimes, if they would only work again for the sake of the Kingdom (which was in their own self-interest). Some listened, but others did not want to give up their freedom and killed the emissaries or drove them out.

Eventually it came time to pass that the Kings plan came to fruition. All the peasants who obeyed the King lived with Him on his land in harmony with one another, with enough to last them the rest of their days. The rebellious peasants could no longer raid the Kings stocks because they were completely shut out. They begged to be let in, because they were now starving, but it was too late..the King was neither going to take from the reward of those who earned it, to give to those who didn't, and who were presented every opportunity to change their ways, nor was he going to pollute the harmony he had cultivated (harmony based on gratitude for the reward and his justness)..for the rebellious peasants were neither grateful nor did they think the King was just. For them, it was here today and gone tomorrow..that is how they lived and that is how they died.

People have certainly been argued into believing in Jesus is their savior. They are typically called children. But, to get to the crux of your argument, until I can believe in god, I can't believe in god. Or rather, until I believe in god, I will have no reason to do so. That is about as circular as you can get.....

No, I am saying that until you feel that you need to be saved, for whatever reason, then you won't come near Jesus. You have to feel you need a savior before you look for one. Curiousity might get you near, but it won't make you follow Him. It is useless to argue someone into knowing Jesus..Jesus Himself predicted the kind of Christians that would produce in the parable of the sower: A weak one the devil will come steal away in times of hardship.

Your arrogance truly knows no bounds, does it? First off, you're about 2 decades off in your estimation. Second, as I quite clearly noted in parens, my interest in knowing the lawmakers in DC has nothing to do with whether or not I accept the rules of society. I am in fact deeply interested in the persons that would rule us. Let me ask you - can you name more than 50% of the 535 elected representatives in Congress, and more than 50% of their aides? I deeply care who our elected officials are, what they are doing, why they run, and their ultimate goals (so far as they may be elucidated), but my reasons for doing so have absolutely nothing to do with acceptance of their "authority over me". I think it is you that needs to reread this discussion and find the truth of what was written. You "know" that I have not searched for a god? What incredible presumptuousness. Are you now claiming not only to know God's love, but also when and where He will demonstrate it? Are you the arbiter of God's will????

Don't know don't care pretty much spells it out doesn't it? Seems like that is pride in being uninformed to me. This is the comment that made me think you were young, because that kind of apathy is very common among youth. Generation Emo doesn't give a shit, doesn't want to work, does everything based on feelings, and hasn't thought too deeply about anything because they want instant answers to everything. I concede its possible you have honestly looked, and perhaps God will lead you to Him later, if there is something in your heart that desires to know Him. Whatever it was though, it wasn't good enough. Have you ever tried doing the things that are pleasing to God first, before jumping up and down in his throne room and demanding He dance for you like a court jester? Yes, I do know Gods love. That's why I am here.

It's a philosophical question. Not caring isn't a valid answer to the question.
Not valid for you. Take off your blinders. You do not get to determine what is or is not valid for everyone else's intellectual endeavors.

I accept [that] people see things differently but this question only has so many answers.
This question, as with all questions, has as many answers as individuals as are willing to answer it. If you refuse to accept an answer as "valid", you must logically provide evidence why that is so.

Come on..this issue has been deliberately complicated to an extreme..when it is quite simple. The question of whether the Universe was created is entirely valid and relevant, though atheists will try to make it seem ridiculous, because they want to avoid the simple truth that there are only 3 answers to that question, because if they answer truly they have a burden of proof. I think if you're going to be an atheist, have the balls to admit it and stop playing these childish games with semantics. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe the Universe was created by God(s), period.


Okay, lets start very simply. What does morality mean to you and how does it apply to the world?
I will glady entertain this question, but I do fear that this poor thread is terribly off course. You or I should create a new talk post in the religion or philosophy talk page to continue this. I'll gladly do that if you want.

I think it's doing just fine..however it may be necessary because of the broken comments system..the page is already freezing a bit. I'll get back to you if you don't want to continue on here.

>> ^MaxWilder:

I believe the Ian Knot is a faster way to achieve a similar result. It's what I use, and though it is not perfectly secure like a double knot, I'd call it 99% and still easy to undo.

The Ian Knot achieves the exact same result, and more quickly.

But for the sake of argument, say you want to keep tying your shoes the same way you always have but want to get the strong form of the knot - this guy is still going about it inefficiently, I believe.
The gentleman in this talk recommends wrapping the loop the other way, which is fairly counter-intuitive and must be re-done each time the shoe is tied.
However, you can achieve the same result by wrapping the initial wrap (at the base of the knot) the opposite direction. Even if it "feels wrong" to do it, you still only have to do it once in a blue moon, as long as you never completely unlace that wrap. (I use an Ian Knot, but I still leave the base wrapped when I "untie" my shoes.) Then you can tie the upper, more complicated portion of the knot exactly the same as you always have, using the muscle memory you've cultivated over all these years.

too bad that wisdom isn't generated by advice.

it's cultivated out of lived experience.