People that live in glass houses shouldn't run with scissors. Or something. Wait, He who throws stones is worth 2 in a hand basket... oh fuck it. I LOVE WEINER!

is that gay?

@gwiz665 I wasn't really trying to sidetrack us into a debate over the moral worthiness or lack thereof of libertarianism, honest.

My main point is that you were throwing stones in a glass house. Christianity and libertarianism have most of what you'd said in common, the only difference being that libertarians are fairly small in number, it's a fairly new philosophy, and you haven't committed all that many atrocities yet.

But, from my point of view, you're on the same glide path.

For example, you talk about not having "caused" the suffering of the poor. Why are there poor in the first place? Why doesn't everyone have a guaranteed minimum income, that's paid for by taxes on the wealthy? Because doing that would be a sin in your religion?

In terms of choice, doesn't "being poor" severely limit the range of activities you will actually be legally free to do? Isn't any system that allows the state of "being poor" to exist ultimately one that robs people of their freedom?

On the other bit, in your branch of libertarianism, how does anything ever come to be owned in the first place? Do you not believe in self-ownership? How's self-ownership work if people can't be owned?

You really shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

If you are not free to do whatever you want - even if it's bad - then it's not free will. Here in the real world we are free to do so, but obviously with consequences, that's why we have laws, but if heaven should exist without anything evil happening, it must suppose that free will has been eliminated.

Great sift. Easy on the accusations of ignorance, bob and quantum... glass houses and all.

>> ^pmkierst:

Wow, YT calling fox biased. Glass houses, all that.


Not so much calling them biased as much as calling them big fat liars. It's okay to have a perspective, and to express that perspective. What's not okay is to try to misrepresent yourself as something you're not.

Fox claims that they report the news without a political slant, when in reality they're engaged in an Orwellian attempt to distort the facts, misrepresent history, and even try to alter the very language we use, all to advance their political agenda.

That's way, way past mere "bias", that's propaganda.

Wow, YT calling fox biased. Glass houses, all that.

As an American, it's a complete and utter WTF for me when I read about people in foreign countries (including 1st world foreign countries) killing each other at soccer games for rooting for the wrong team.

Glass houses...

Oh, and for the record, I hate college football.

>> ^poolcleaner:

Ohhhh, atheists are the parasites. I guess I had that backwards. But seriously, what a mind-numbingly absurd thought. People of all faiths (and lack thereof) have all contributed to the collective worth (which is still somewhat lacking) of humanity. When the true physical form of our gods rise from the frozen depths of this planet, we'll see who the parasites are! Atheists will see and believe, but what of the false-theists? Will they yet cling to their pathetic doctrines?


I think everyone lives in a glass house on this one. Christian organizations do a tremendous amount of charity in the world. You might see it as something with strings attached, but a meal and a school house in a remote corner of Africa isn't something to exclude in this formula of benevolence. A score card of self-righteousness surely isn't going to help matters any. I think it is more fair to say that a great deal of people around the world, faith or no faith, are motivated by factors that tend to be self motivated...and there are a few people, of faith and not, that are truly motivated with a good to do to others...and actually act on that. I know I haven't gone down town recently and built a house for someone who needed it, or invented some great gadget that saved a million lives. In the end, I don't think it matters on average who did the greater amount of goods...the real question is...did you.

At its heart this is bad, but this is one case where I support the big corporation. If every single bit of content on the internet was controlled by the rule of law we wouldn't have a quarter of the stuff we have on videosift. People in glass houses etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

the average of all the incomes = about $55/k is not the same thing as
the average american makes $55/k

also, it's not all about your pocket.

are those 10 years really wasted? i assume you got to live reasonably well and in reasonably good health. you probably even got to buy cool shit, go out to dinners and see some movies.

i've said it before, glass houses don't provide much perspective.

Glass houses, choggie, glass houses.

An amazing piece of architectural engineering, of course they're going to publicise the fact they've just built the tallest building in the world. Who wouldn't?

Obviously Smugg, you know nothing of the Palestinian problem to be making such an inane comment and so far as the Muslim responsibility for helping poorer Muslim nations...it made me think about all those lucky lucky Christian kids living in abject poverty in Mexican slums thinking about how lucky they are to be bordered by the great and benevolent Christian USA. (along with all the people living in American slums??) Stones and glass houses I think.

I don't personally agree with nor like the ostentatiousness of Dubai, in the same way I don't agree/like that of Vegas and Disneyworld. I also do not like self righteous American hypocrisy.

So the workers only got $6 p/day?? Who, the designers? the structural engineers? maybe the architects? I'm sure some of the workers were low paid but not all. I mean, it's not like the USA has ever made use of cheap immigrant labour is it. (and let's not talk about the use of SLAVE labour, it only lasted three hundred years after all.)

The article makes the following points
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green-house effects,
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

(a) seems pretty obvious. It's not a greenhouse, so it shouldn't be called a "greenhouse effect". Heh, well duh. (it uses 34 pages to show this!)

I don't have any credentials to argue against any of the other points, because I'm not a physicist. I'm not sure I can recognize the article in the post that climategate did; seems to be Fox'ed up a bit.

>> ^chilaxe:
Isn't that throwing stones in glass houses? We say the same thing: http://www.videosift.com/video/Feeling-the
-Hate-In-Jerusalem-on-Obama-s-Cairo-Address#comment-778730

I don't think so, no.

As much as I believe what I believe, I'm willing to let others believe what they want as well. My problem begins when someone else tries to tell me I have to do things his way.

You can decide on who's right and who's wrong yourself, but it's the willingness to allow others to decide on their own who's right and who's wrong that makes a society free.

>> ^demon_ix:
Ah. Reminds me of the Palin supporters.
"When you're right, you don't have to compromise. Compromise is for people that are wrong".


Isn't that throwing stones in glass houses? We say the same thing: http://www.videosift.com/video/Feeling-the-Hate-In-Jerusalem-on-Obama-s-Cairo-Address#comment-778730