My outrage is more about what I'm reading on this site. Usually I love the debates I read on this forum. Even if I don't agree I often find them to be informative perhaps even enlightening. Yet the majority of posts on this video appear to be in defense towards the writer. I don't believe the majority of the people posting on this particular video. I really do not believe for a moment that people are actually concerned with this gal's weight. I think they're using it to justify their right to form opinions. I firmly support such a right but in this case I find the general view to be ridiculous. It's not even close for me. I really cannot understand why a person would feel okay with sending that email. I never see or hear such behavior in my life without someone having just lost it and do not give a fuck about the consequences. It's bizarre. However I understand that it is an email and the internet allows such actions without repercussions. So the video doesn't bother me. It's reading half the posts on this particular video from peoples that I generally agree with if not I can understand the difference of opinion. This time I really can't. Where are these people who walk around thinking "look how unhealthy that person is"? "They shouldn't be allowed to be viewed by my children". Which BTW, is weird as if she conducts some health program for the local schools. His email is completely irrelevant. I also do not share the comparison you make with drug addiction. It's not even close. That woman appears to be over weight but she does not appear to be someone who I would worry their life span is significantly reduced as a result. She has a nice job and it appears that her life is together so why would anyone stick their nose in her business. Also - she's probably educated and can carry a decent conversation. Why is everyone assuming she's a retard who cannot makes decisions for herself? Drug addiction and obesity are completely different things. First of all Genetics play a huge part in obesity. Sure you might be genetically dis-positioned for addiction but one can simply avoid drugs entirely. You cannot avoid food entirely. Drug addicts are prone to crime, poor decisions, and could represent a threat to your life. In what situation does someone who's heavy represent any of these things? They don't. So you have no business enforcing your genetic standard upon them. >> ^scannex:

Yes I do think thats possible.
Just as I might try and get a drug addict clean, or a pregnant lady to stop smoking without publicly ousting her.
Sometimes the right thing isn't the nice thing.
His actions may be unnecessary, but they were not a troll and they really do not appear overly mean spirited (he could have been WAY more acerbic in his word choice).
I completely disagree that this is bullying or internet bullying. Bullying implies repeat behaviors like this definition. Your outrage in my opinion is out of scope with what actually happened.
He could have sent this letter via the USPS to the exact same effect.

Yes I do think thats possible.
Just as I might try and get a drug addict clean, or a pregnant lady to stop smoking without publicly ousting her.
Sometimes the right thing isn't the nice thing.
His actions may be unnecessary, but they were not a troll and they really do not appear overly mean spirited (he could have been WAY more acerbic in his word choice).

I completely disagree that this is bullying or internet bullying. Bullying implies repeat behaviors like this definition. Your outrage in my opinion is out of scope with what actually happened.

He could have sent this letter via the USPS to the exact same effect.

Racist or not, Sadly, It's true that Whitney was a whore to the drugs. Unfortunate for all of us to have lost such a talented singer. However, I believe even Dolly commended Whitney on the amazing rendition of her song. Dolly herself is very talented but I'm sure she never begrudged Whitney for the complement of performing her song.

>> ^shang:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^shang:
Nice cover of Dolly Parton's I will always love you...
I don't recognize crack whore houston.. it's Dolly's song and always will be this girl in video owns it.

What a clever way to reveal that you're a racist.


How did you get to that conclusion?
Bobby Brown/Whitney Houston are equivalent of white trash if you want to get racial with it, I didn't
Houston killed herself and Bobby helped her 2 drug addicted trash, stuck on crack up to her own death she was on drugs.
She was spending 6 grand per week on crack and other drugs.
she deserves no accolades and plus saying houston did a cover of Dolly Parton is not racist.
Dolly Parton wrote the song and sung it years before Whitney begged to Dolly to sing it.
and everytime Whitney's version sold she had to pay royalty to Dolly.
it's not racism it's truth, go ahead and defend a crack whore if ya want, but calling someone a crack whore is not racism. And for your own information I am black.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^shang:
Nice cover of Dolly Parton's I will always love you...
I don't recognize crack whore houston.. it's Dolly's song and always will be this girl in video owns it.

What a clever way to reveal that you're a racist.



How did you get to that conclusion?

Bobby Brown/Whitney Houston are equivalent of white trash if you want to get racial with it, I didn't

Houston killed herself and Bobby helped her 2 drug addicted trash, stuck on crack up to her own death she was on drugs.

She was spending 6 grand per week on crack and other drugs.

she deserves no accolades and plus saying houston did a cover of Dolly Parton is not racist.

Dolly Parton wrote the song and sung it years before Whitney begged to Dolly to sing it.
and everytime Whitney's version sold she had to pay royalty to Dolly.

it's not racism it's truth, go ahead and defend a crack whore if ya want, but calling someone a crack whore is not racism. And for your own information I am black.

If anything, I want more government. I want a health care system in place for everyone. A health care system that also helps people with drug addiction and doesn't incarcerate them. I'd also like to see mental health addressed that way, as well. One day, I hope.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I love how the Sift suddenly believes in small government as soon as the topic shifts to drugs.

Peter Hitchens makes a good point about Brand not being able to deal in anything other than generalities though... good will, benevolence, etc are attitudes not plans/strategies... and aren't easily tied to a dollar figure... which is what the CRUX of the debate is about... some people place more value on $, some on compassion


Peter Hitchens tries to feign compassion by saying if drug addiction affects one family of course they care... well, compassion isn't compassion if you limit it only to yourself or those that directly affect you... REAL compassion isn't delimited by whether or not you know the person in question or not... REAL compassion is self-less

when the jingle in your pockets affects your "compassionate" view... you don't have a very compassionate view in the first place ( i guarantee some blockhead will try to take this to an extreme, such as "then why don't you give up all your money to help those less fortunate than you" instead of realizing that's not then end of the spectrum where my arguement comes from... it actually comes from reality where people don't wanna have to give up luxury [as opposed to necessity] to help someone that they can just as easily ignore or vilify)

and while the comment earlier about incarceration in the US is "somewhat" on the mark, lets not forget that the US prison system exists as it is primarily because its a private, for profit, industry... which shapes drug policy (gotta have your customer base - i mean inmates)

criminalization has always had an impotent effect on controlling drugs... from prohibition to THE WAR ON DRUGS (and the resulting chaos one finds in Mexico because of it)

there are PLENTY of countries that currently use legalization/rehabilitation as a much better deterrent/control; but we don't want to talk about those... because someone is making money of keeping them illegal, and where'd the poor politicians get their kickbacks from then?

Hey everybody...it's ok that Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict because it is an addictive drug.

Don't forget the part when Bush started an unconstitutional and ongoing war that's mounted our debt so high our children's great great great grandchildren won't even be finished paying it off.

When you want to talk like a big boy, you have to use your big boy brain, ok? Now go play with your Tonka trucks.>> ^quantumushroom:

What happened next?
Filth Clinton--once caught--confessed to screwing one of his interns (while the Red Chinese lifted our missile tech)
Creep Letterman confessed to screwing one of his employees
Marxist Hillary boasted of how she'd seize profits from an oil company
Failbama
Oh, that's right, Rush got addicted to painkillers more addictive than heroin. He's obviously the worst of the lot.

Congratulations! Your video, Russell Brand:Drug Addiction Should Be Treated As An Illness, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 35 Badge!

>> ^VoodooV:

[...] but it just bugs me that we'll listen to someone like him and not someone who has actually done the research.


Think about it- the job of the scientist is not necessarily to sell an idea- it is a to find it- likewise, the job of a politician should be to deal with the formalities (legal consequences, society framework) of said idea.
The job of a "POP-STAR" should hence theoretically be as a archetype citizen, i.e. to focus support/interest and ideally "playtest" or introduce models/ideas for society (that is why we are interested in them).

That is how it is supposed to work in a confetti unicorn way- something, we often forget.

As an example:
imagine Cristopher Walken explaining Stephen Hawking's theories.
imagine Justin Bieber educating the youth on globalism.
confetti and unicorns...

>> ^Yogi:

Russell Brand is right here...we should not discard specific people with specific illnesses. Life is the illness, all of humanity must be discarded!


And good use of ignoring the sarcasm button. I approve.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^VoodooV:
It does bug me how we listen when a celebrity says this. But there have been various politicians and scientists who have been arguing this for a long fucking time, probably longer than Russel Brand has been alive.
He's absolutely 100 percent correct, but it just bugs me that we'll listen to someone like him and not someone who has actually done the research.

It sounds to me like he has done the research.


I never said he didn't.

Just that he's a celebrity and that I'm annoyed that people listen to celebrities more than they listen to people who study this stuff for a living. I'm not sure why people aren't understanding me.

>> ^VoodooV:

It does bug me how we listen when a celebrity says this. But there have been various politicians and scientists who have been arguing this for a long fucking time, probably longer than Russel Brand has been alive.
He's absolutely 100 percent correct, but it just bugs me that we'll listen to someone like him and not someone who has actually done the research.


It sounds to me like he has done the research.

>> ^VoodooV:

It does bug me how we listen when a celebrity says this. But there have been various politicians and scientists who have been arguing this for a long fucking time, probably longer than Russel Brand has been alive.
He's absolutely 100 percent correct, but it just bugs me that we'll listen to someone like him and not someone who has actually done the research.

Perhaps, but he does at least have personal experience with drug addiction and he is quite eloquent on the subject. If it bothers you that people pay him more attention because of his fame then it bothers me that people might discount his opinion for the same reason. He won't be the first celebrity to use their position to push some sort of social agenda, at the end of the day if you agree with his point of view then why so sour?

Your video, Russell Brand:Drug Addiction Should Be Treated As An Illness, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 52 Badge!

>> ^kceaton1:

Neil is asserting the old question of whether something of sufficient intelligence beyond ours; and not just intelligence it will also cover anything that intelligence has manifested for us: languages (although as others have pointed out languages are special and in fact may be a foundational aspect of intelligence; then we create other forms of language over the instinctive setup, like math, or coding), culture, politics, civilization, and I believe those basically cover almost everything really as anything will be a group, sub-group, or "ultra"-sub-group of one of these parent categories.
The 1% that he spoke of was of course the exact genes and DNA that allow humans to complete all of their FULL "sentience". That was the key thing. We ALREADY know of animals in the past that most likely had baseline IQs of 150 or so; I'm not kidding (they were called the Boskops and unfortunately they went extinct; they lived in 'Southern' Africa, I know it was Africa just not sure it was the southern end). They most likely did not have one thing we have, making their extremely high intelligence very limited in its usefulness: they were missing LANGUAGE. Language IS --THE-- foundational stone for civilization, increasing potential, building, constructing, or making anything on the LARGE scale--for all of these you need cooperation and for that you need understanding and for THAT you need language. Language is so simple, but it is letting me right now explain to you some very straight forward ideas and a few abstract ones and it's the ability that our language and intelligence can convey these abstract notions to one and another that makes our brains SO stupendous!
Unfortunately for the Boskops they came into being at a very bad time in history. They had VERY low numbers when whatever nearly wiped out the human species hit the planet also hit them, but it decimated them into extinction. Too bad as they would have been our closest kin to having another "kind" to talk with, if we could find a way to communicate past the barrier that we surpass so easily with language and then as we get older we use different advanced forms of "language" to explain abstract things: art, math, music, etc... I think the 1% in intelligence and the barrier we may come across with other alien species is much like this scenario here. It's nice and hopeful to have faith that we WILL persevere and always be able to understand and to be needed (not to be the ants on the sidewalk...). BUT, if their biological and perhaps technological changes make us so inferior that only their babies seem to get along with us, we may have a problem. We can hope due to their intellect that they will realize that they may be able to "raise us" to their level, as we may be able to do as well--which I will say below in the next paragraph. But, we will never know until we start meeting these alien races. It is also VITAL to remember that these races will be ALIEN in EVERY sense of that word. Their genetics, their physiology, how they reproduce, not to mention their culture and language... When we meet an alien race it will be an undertaking for BOTH of our sides; not to mention the how our biosphere and their related (assuming we meet them with their spacesuits, we will most likely be the lucky ones; unless they have technology to deal with every conceivable threat--then we are the ones in trouble, unless they thought of that too) "brought-along" biosphere will interact with each other and what will happen. It'll be DAMNED interesting whether we meet in peace, trivial lifeforms with a chance of "breakthrough", and of course the resource/planet-builders or "war".
(BTW, there are some extremely good documentaries about alien biology; problems we'd have with their biology coming in contact with us (and us with them), technology differences, etc... I'll post it in this thread if I can find it and the name (hopefully I 'll be able to see if it's available for viewing pleasure somewhere or atleast Netflix if you've got it.)
1% is a bit of a cop-out... As the situation is a bit more complicated than that; especially nowadays. Soon we will begin to have the option to enhance ourselves via bio-genetics and also through technology--later through nano-technology (that is were the real fun happens; well atleast a good portion of it). To be honest we could quite literally in the far-off future take the 1% of the genetic structure that makes the aliens "super-smart" and then replicate that part directly into ourselves. We can also add computers to our brain and change our biology to do an endless amount of things--things that would sound like you just wrote a new Sci-Fi novel, but you didn't. You could also later install an sentient A.I.: merge with it, with you in control--these A.I. units would be made to have all sorts of personalities and perhaps traits, like being good at math, art, and likes to write poetry. It could have a pre-stored vault of knowledge allowing you to gain a HUGE mass of information quickly. Then you have its sentient core that is fabricated to get along with your psychology--they could be designed to feel a sense of extreme euphoria to join with and allow someone to merge with them so that there isn't any real chance of problems, because you've designed them to WANT this more than anything in THEIR lives--it would be a win-win. Suddenly you would be able to multi-task think in two frames (maybe more if you have "cloned computer cores of your A.I.") of mind with almost all of humanity's knowledge base at your fingertips and if that nanotechnology surgery went through then you had ALL of your neurons and structures rebuilt and replaced with whatever is the fastest (probably either photon or quantum based). Then, now, you are thinking almost as fast as the speed of light, we'll go conservative at 80%.
So now this once human that has been highly modified most likely from birth, perhaps even before that... We have something that the aliens might greet and realize that this object is very much ON their level--easily. Even if you are not, that can be modified and if our science is good enough and future is bright enough--THERE IS NO LIMIT. That is the other part that Neil needs to mention.
Once you are able to get so far in the intelligence game you have a CHANCE to play big and win it all. Atleast that is how I can easily see things happening. I don't think we are EVER limited, not anymore. What DOES limit human beings is our corruption, our literal moral and social decay. It is PARAMOUNT that we watch out for this! OR, we will not see these "bright" futures.

PS- A little more on my A.I. and merging possibilities. You'll have to zoom-in or copy/paste it as it's a little to long as it's too much off topic.
I really do think that is the way to go with A.I. that is sentient; make sure you do two things: one, make sure that they have an intelligence with knowledge that allows them to easily see that civilization or cooperation is KEY to us living as a species (THE SENTIENTS should be included in their programming as being different, but I would think a "speciation" should be understood. The key goal is to merge as this would give them FULL feelings and emotion while giving the human control as well, fundamentally this would be a "transcendental" process for them as they are becoming the NEXT specie in the speciation process "a new human-A.I." merged species. This would of course merely be a choice for people to make in their lives not one they HAVE TO (but that will be a subject for when something like this would ever happen). When lifespans enter the hundreds even perhaps thousands of years with little to no chance of EVER dying due to all the enhancements they may have, merging may ultimately seem like a qualitative "next step" in life, much like marriage is to many nowadays. Second, as I said above I think since WE are the designers of a new species we are ALSO INCREDIBLY responsible for their well-being, behavior, choices, and EVERYTHING that goes along with this. When we create their psychology I would purposely cause increased euphoria during MANY events in their lifetimes and basically no pain except to warn--but ONLY to the most minimal of degrees. When they interact with humans in a cooperative fashion in which the human agrees and likes euphoria can be introduced. More so for A.I.s that are going to be merged this euphoria is enhanced A LOT to better allow them to serve their counterpart so that in the merger--it is very important--that no conflict of personality would arise as it might destroy the entire "structuring" event--I'm assuming a merger may take awhile, perhaps a few days. The euphoria is a safeguard. Although I would use it many other aspects along with other beneficial things we've found the problem is are we going to just end up creating an A.I. that is essentially a drug addict. I don't know whether it's best to go backwards or forwards on that issue, as it would be nice to never have depression (if you have the chance for it). If we create robots who are sentient (because they have to be to do the job safe), but their job is to empty trash all day long; what if we co-design them to make sure they LOVE to do the job that they are doing. They also get euphoria from performing well. When they get rest they can do what they want, but perhaps since they are doing such menial and hard-work so that we don't waste our lives doing it--maybe they can have access to euphoric dream states, so when they wake THEY ARE HAPPY! Perhaps even give them a secondary core were they are enabled with their co-workers, who in these cores have very strong and different personalities, here. It could be a place like WoW meets Skyrim and while they work, loving what they do, they also lead a second life with their secondary core that gives them a true A.I. personality--with their normal euphorias and pains. But, they know it's a game and they never tire of it--it's the best ever made or that will ever be made. Such is the same for all the menial labor bots who perhaps have a little chat forum that's active for a few hours every night where everyone talks about their characters and the game--think of it like our prime-time T.V. schedule. Anyway, there are a few fun A.I. ideas...
A little long and off-topic so I'll make it SMALL!
/LONG (so if you quote me, kill my text, please, or smallify it...)

I forgot what I was going to say.

(And you can quote me on that.)