>> ^mentality:

It has nothing to do with martial rule. China's repression is notorious, but only aimed at politically sensitive topics.


As a matter of fact, China's repression is notoriously aimed at everything that moves. Never heard of the countless stories of chicken thieves sentenced to death? Or of the citizens petitioning the local government over some company dumping stuff in the river, only to get harassed by the cops, because the CEO has connections with The Party?
In China, the police and Justice are famously ineffective and corrupt. To keep up the appearance of strength, they will come down hard on anyone they catch, regardless of their crime or even their guilt. If you are a regular folk, you have no money or connection so you'd better keep quiet if you don't want trouble. Basically if you're a crook, you have less chance to get in trouble than if you make your voice heard. And once again, I'm not saying this explains this specific story, I'm saying this doesn't make for a sane society.

People have this idea of China still being some sort of Stalinist state. It is not. It's the Wild West over there, and the robber barons are in charge.


>> ^mentality:


It is comforting to be in denial, to blame this on our differences. There must be something wrong with THEM; this could NEVER happen in OUR civilized society.


Mmm, maybe you're reading a bit too much in what I said? To the question "dictature or culture", I pretty much answered "not culture". For all you know, I could be Chinese. And that kind of thing could very well happen in an European society; case in point: the "whatever happens, walk by and pretend NOT to notice ANYTHING" attitude reminded me of Central/Western Europe under Communist rule more than anything else. This has left that kind of stigma there to this day (Russia: non-white baby stabbed in stroller in the middle of the street in broad daylight? Sorry, no witnesses!).

>> ^Diogenes:

i have seen and even experienced the same in taiwan, which is democratic. the culture simply puts less value on a human life and welfare than many westerners do... you can see it in their medical system (universal health care is not what you might think here)


Your story about the good Samaritan getting sued on the spot for helping, I do get (if you were talking about mainland China), because I've seen that kind of story several times in reports covering this news here (to explain why people would not stick their neck out).
However the part about Taiwan, care to back that up? Taiwan has the standard of living of Western Europe, and they in fact do have universal health care, something which cannot be said of the USA for example.

>> ^Yogi:

And the cameraman just sits there and watches! What a fucktard...can we sue him? Is there a way we can stop these horrible Penguin related crimes?! Fucking bastard that cameraman is.


I believe that falls under the "Good Samaritan Law" umbrella.

There is a video on here: http://videosift.com/video/Good-Samaritans-Lift-Burning-Car-Off-Motorcyclist

Now THAT'S how you convert someone to your faith. I still think all religion is bs, but if this man's display of empathy in the name of Islam will be repeated by the would-be thief for the same reasons, good for them.

As for the overplaying of the benevolent store-owner's religion as a factor, I cannot help but be reminded of M&B's "Good Samaritan" sketch:

Well, I'm impressed. A cop obviously did good, and people didn't [seriously] try to condemn him in any way, and this was definitely promoted as a cop video. Go videosift, go =P. It's not just full of people giving the same knee-jerk reaction to a standard stimulus.

I'm curious if there would have been any different reaction if it were just some random person/good samaritan that saved her, instead of a cop.

All Christian codes of conduct (its ethics) can be traced back to Greek philosophers

Jewish ethical philosophy was existant before the Mycenaean age, let alone the Classical or Hellenistic. Christ was Jewish, and there is no record of him receiving secret ethical training from Greek philosophers. This statement is absurd prima facie.

But – as I said before – I never claimed that religions (the organizations) were perfect or ideal. I merely stated that they provide ethical training to people in an organized fashion, and that is beneficial to the concept of “making better people”. I even predicted your hostility (or at least its potential) because I know there are those who are hostile towards “churches” for a variety of reasons.

communities other than churches have made good people long before religion got involved

No one is saying that religion is the sole originator of societal good. I merely stated it is AN important source of societal good and should be fostered rather than treated with hostility. Or if “fostered” is impossible for some to whom religion is not acceptable, then it should at least be treated with deference rather than anger.

Of course there are lots of places people can do good things. However, it must be said that churches have one of the most organized and systematic approaches. For example - let’s say you volunteer at a soup kitchen. Cool – you’re ‘doing good’. But in what way does a soup kitchen train you to understand WHY you’re doing something? You are pouring soup. A monkey could do that. Just as important is the moral philosophy behind why you’re doing it. You do not get that sort of training from soup kitchens, book clubs, softball league, art house, chat groups, or even most actual charities. I participate in a lot of state & municipal groups, and not once have I ever received “moral training”. But every Sunday in church I get some.

Again – I’m not trying to tell you such things are not possible. Of course they are. However, church is just one of those places where “morality” is taught as a matter of necessity rather than as an incidental suggestion or inference. Isn’t that something we should be supporting rather than attacking?

You cannot speak for all churches no matter how much you would like to.

If you go around the country and eat at a bunch of diners, you are then able to report certain facts about them without claiming that you are “speaking for all diners”. And thus it is here. You’re complaining about something that doesn’t matter here.

Their point is not to make people moral, it is to teach their religion.

I’ve been in a lot of them, and I’d say your characterization is inaccurate. I would say that their first objective is teach a morality system, and that their second objective is to obtain converts to THEIR specific organization.

The first thing that happens when I sit down in any particular denomination is I get a belly-full of moral instruction. They talk about faith, good works, Christ, love, sacrifice, turning the other cheek, being a good Samaritan, and that sort of thing. If you keep showing up at their building, then they will start inquiring about whether or not you are a ‘member’ of their denomination. It is at THIS point that people like yourself & Enoch start parting ways with them.

And it is true that a lot of religions place more importance on being a ‘member’ than on learning the morality. Which is really too bad. I don’t disagree that this kind of “join us” pressure is distasteful. Ideally, religions would do nothing more than teach their morality beliefs and “invite” those who wish to join them at their own pleasure. Quite a lot of them do this. But there are those who are much more insistent, and it is a bad thing. Totally on your page in that regard. But I disagree when you say that their only purpose is to push a specific denomination. I’ve seen dozens of churches that have sermons, help people, teach gospel – and ask nothing in return.

You are blatantly misrepresenting the purpose of a church and acting like the unquestioning following of a supposed supernatural entity isn't the entire point of the organization.

I disagree with your opinion that the purpose of a church is to foster unquestioning belief because I’ve seen otherwise. Many good religions encourage seeking and questioning – so your premise here is false.

This is a straw man that has nothing to do with what I'm saying

No, it’s a great example that has everything to do with what you’re saying. You just don’t like how effective it is, which is why you entirely ignored the substance of the argument.

Religion isn't needed for people to do good.

Of course not. I never said so. But religion does lead people to do good things. Even if you don’t agree with “religion”, isn’t that beneficial? Why stop it?

And in what way am I hassling you or your religion?

I didn’t say you were. If you’re feeling guilty on this point, then it is entirely from your own conscience that this is originating.

You brought it up and suggested that everyone should be religious

No. I never said that. Again, you’re using absolutes to imply meaning that does not exist. All I said is that churches teach morality, and that morality instruction is what a lot of people above said was necessary to “make better people”. I went on to suggest that such a thing should be encouraged, rather than treated with hostility. And I also predicted that some people would react hostilely to the suggestion. As usual, I was 100% correct. It is a burden to me sometimes to be so prescient, but such is my lot.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
And yes, for the record, I do believe that all capable persons have a moral obligation to help when possible.


My friend, I'm not defending the guy. I'm just pointing out that he doesn't look like the threat to national security some of you are making him out to be.

"Capable" is the questionable word here. Aside from that, with the possible lawsuits and prosecutions that could arise, anyone would be crazy to involve themselves in any situation like this. Even when life and limb is at stake, good samaritans in the states get the shaft often.

I can only assume the sole reason this video is being voted up is that the good samaritan is Julian Assange. Come on now, Really?

-edit-
Just sayin'

And what people learn in church is how to be sheep

This is a common neolib conceit. While there are myriad foibles, prejudices, and issues with religion as a whole - it cannot be argued that the principles taught by religous organizations (love one another, do unto others, turn the other cheek, go with him twain, good samaritan, et al) are precisely the sort of thing that will achieve the effect you purport to advocate (focus on welfare of others). Now - you may personally disagree with religion and that's fine. But I ask now for you to seriously consider what other source this sort of mindset is going to originate from if not the home and family?

Such sentiment certainly does not come from humanism, or secularism, or any other philosophy of men. It does not come from government. It does not come from public school. It does not come from 'community organization'. There is not a single aspect of leftist teaching, learning, or philosophy that encourages human beings to become 'good people'. That is the pervue of home, family, and religion.

So while you don't respect such things, you say that you want the values that family/church advocate to permeate society. A funny little muddle. I'm personally glad that I don't have to engage is such gesticulations of hypocrisy in order to have a moral base. I merely have to advocate that people become better, more perfect practicioners of their faith. All the needs of society can be easily, simply met by giving people their freedom, removing the onerous burden of government over-regulation & taxation - and then encouraging them to pursue their own self-interest as enlightned by their religion & morality they learned from their family.

>> ^HugeJerk:

I love the guy at the end. Christians know how to make people who were one color into another, they turned Jesus white thru propaganda!


Please don't generalize all Christians like this. Jesus was Jewish (Israelites). That is one of the biggest qualifications of the Messiah, i.e. to be of the line of David. Therefore he had a Mediterranean pigmentation. He was not black, nor was he white.

In regards to race...

There has been two major dispensations from God. In one he dealt with the Israelites, and everyone else was referred to as Gentiles (Asians, Africans, Whites, Hispanics, Canadians :-) , etc.). The gentiles during the time of the old testament were regarded somewhat (a generalization) as heathens. Then after Jesus came and went everyone (Jews and Gentiles) are dealt pretty much the same. This is an over-generalization but it is generally close enough. During the tribulation period God will once again work only through the Israelites.

And for the white supremists out there... Acts 8 is a passage in the Bible where God specifically cares for a black person. You can read a commentary about it here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Acts/Philip-Ethiopian-Eunuch

To summarize... Philip is in the middle of a great revival. Many people were being saved. Yet God calls him away so he can go to a desert and witness to a black man, an Ethiopian. Is this not convincing enough to show how God cares for everyone of the world? There is also the passage about the good-samaritan. This passage also refers to race since Samaritans were considered half-breeds (half Jewish and half gentile).

So there is enough Biblical evidence to show that God cares for all people of the world.


This video is about white trash. Don't lump all Christians with them.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'mitchell, webb, sketch, good samaritan' to 'mitchell, webb, sketch, good samaritan, racism, sammylovers' - edited by gwiz665

"The response of the inmates in this case, I think, speaks volumes as to the fact that we treat these men and women ... in our facilities with a lot of respect," Previtera said.

It's like the good Samaritan story but then instead of the injured traveler thanking him he claims he was saved because how well his people treat those stinky Samaritans.

>> ^silvercord:
I wonder if this would have made the top 15 if the title had been "Good Samaritans Save Embarrassed Kid From Skatebowl?" Then it could have been humanitarian,


I don't think they're good Samaritans, I think they just wanted to get the fat fuck out so they could skate again.

I wonder if this would have made the top 15 if the title had been "Good Samaritans Save Embarrassed Kid From Skatebowl?" Then it could have been *humanitarian,

Best comment - Tymbrwulf. People are so cruel - no one wanted to help him get more beer!

I cannot imagine that guy getting more wasted, or how one could be considered a 'good samaritan' for helping him do so. Classic.