It's a great shame that most Australians either don't object or actively support the right for gays and lesbians to marry, but both major parties block it.

The Labor gov. (ostensibly socialist) has enough support in the balance of power cross benchers to get this through, but members of the party, including the Prime Minister, are opposed to it...

The Kiwis, who we often make fun of as backwards sheep shaggers, are once again proving to be far more advanced in the realm of human rights than we are.

Ngā mihi nui me te aroha nui (congratulations and best wishes!)

13 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'nestle, ceo, water, privatised, human right' to 'nestle, ceo, water, privatised, human right, Peter Brabeck' - edited by burdturgler

@alcom

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

There is always an appeal to authority, either to God or to men. There are either objective moral values which are imposed by God, or morality is relative and determined by men. If morality is relative then there is no good or evil, and what is considered good today may be evil tomorrow. If it isn't absolutely wrong to murder indiscriminately, for instance, then if enough people agreed that it was right, it would be. Yet, this does not cohere with reality because we all know that murdering indiscriminately is absolutely wrong. The true test of a worldview is its coherence to reality and atheism is incoherent with our experience, whereas Christian theism describes it perfectly.

If you feel the videos provide a valid refutation, could you articulate the argument that they are using so we can discuss them here?

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

The idea of agape love is a Christian idea, and agape love is unconditional love. You do not get agape love out of natural selection because it is sacrificial and sacrificing your well being or your life has a very negative impact on your chance to survive and pass on your genes. However, Christ provided the perfect example of agape love by sacrificing His life not only for His friends and family, but for people who hate and despise Him. In the natural sense, since Jesus failed to pass on His genes His traits should be selected out of the gene pool. Christ demonstrated a higher love that transcends the worldly idea of love. Often when the world speaks of love, it is speaking of eros love, which is love based on physical attraction, or philial love, which is brotherly love. The world knows very little of agape love outside of Christ. Christ taught agape love as the universal duty of men towards God:

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Luke 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
Luke 6:29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.
Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.
Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
Luke 6:32 "If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
Luke 6:33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
Luke 6:34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
Luke 6:36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.

Some people, like Richard Dawkins, see infanticide as being the greatest utility. Some believe that to save the planet around 70 percent of the population must be exterminated. Green thought is to value the health of the planet above individual lives; to basically say that human lives are expendable to preserve the collective. This is why abortion is not questionable to many who hold these ideals; because human life isn't that valuable to them. I see many who have green thoughts contrast human beings to cattle or cockroaches. Utility is an insufficient moral standard because it is in the eye of the beholder.

In regards to the Levitical laws, those were given to the Jews and not the world, and for that time and place. God made a covenant with the Jewish people which they agreed to follow. The covenant God made with the world through Christ is different than the Mosaic law, and it makes those older laws irrelevant. If you would like to understand why God would give laws regarding slavery, or homosexuality, I can elucidate further.

In regards to your paraphrasing of Deuteronomy 23:13-14, this is really a classic example of how the scripture can be made to look like it is saying one thing, when it is actually saying something completely different. Did you read this scripture? It does not say that:

Deuteronomy 23:13 And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement.

Deuteronomy 23:14 Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

Gods home on Earth was in the tabernacle, and because God dwelled with His people, He exorted them to keep the camp holy out of reverence for Him.

The rules that God gave for cleanliness were 2500 years ahead of their time:

"In the Bible greater stress was placed upon prevention of disease than was given to the treatment of bodily ailments, and in this no race of people, before or since, has left us such a wealth of LAWS RELATIVE TO HYGIENE AND SANITATION as the Hebrews. These important laws, coming down through the ages, are still used to a marked degree in every country in the world sufficiently enlightened to observe them. One has but to read the book of Leviticus carefully and thoughtfully to conclude that the admonitions of Moses contained therein are, in fact, the groundwork of most of today's sanitary laws. As one closes the book, he must, regardless of his spiritual leanings, feel that the wisdom therein expressed regarding the rules to protect health are superior to any which then existed in the world and that to this day they have been little improved upon" (Magic, Myth and Medicine, Atkinson, p. 20). Dr. D. T. Atkinson

What's interesting about that is that Moses was trained in the knowledge of the Egyptians, the most advanced civilization in the world at that time. Yet you will not find even a shred of it in the bible. Their understanding of medicine at that time led to them doing things like rubbing feces into wounds; ie, it was completely primitive in comparison to the commands that God gave to Moses about cleanliness. Moses didn't know about germs but God did.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I agree with you mostly. I think the difference though, to use your homeless example, is that many people would not need to have a homeless person in their family to support social government programs that reduce poverty and homelessness.

For the Dick Cheneys and Rob Portmans of the world, it takes a son or daughter. That's a failure of empathy. You shouldn't need a homeless son or daughter or a gay son or daughter to support human rights.

Perhaps it's the emotionally-charged irrationality of your reaction to anything "gun?" Or maybe it's when "relevant" statistics are presented (after yet another snide, smug, ill-informed statement) which do not support your tainted world view, you resort to name-calling and stereotype?

If you noticed, there are a small minority of peeps here on the Videosift who regard firearms without fear or disdain, who regard their possession fundamental to authentic, human rights while the vast majority or either neutral on the events happening in the U.S. or support further bans, limitations, checks, etc.

Please, join Professor Farnsworth on the domestic surveillance, warrant-less wiretap, citizen redefined as domestic terrorist planet?!

Delusion is what you may experiencing, I suggest turning off the television, mein freund.

Wonder if all his little A-list friends were invited?
Danny Glover and Kevin Spacey will be there, Harry Belafonte and Bono are gonna sing, Naomi Campbell and Cornel West will be coming together to make her look smart and him look sexy...Oliver Stone OHhh, and that whining bitch Cindy Sheehan can come and continue her 2nd or 3rd stage of grief with fellow mourners...

Human rights abuses and threats will no-doubt continue, maybe they'll let anyone have a television station and a constitution that let's you talk shit about el comandante' without being killed or disappeared...Or maybe they should pull an Alberto Fujimori and hire-out!!

*promote

No, it's where we all may be if the process of ass-fucking peeps out of basic human rights continues unchecked for about 25 more years. If those who call the ACTUAL shots had it their way, the occidental end of the planet would be run in a similar manner.

Sometimes its the foolish who can cause us to let our guard down and see truth.

May be its the embarrassing, ignorance of Rodman is what N. korea needs.
What if Rodman goes back with more ball players? If they can have the attention of kim Jong Un may be they can speak of human rights...

Does the kid (kim Jong Un) really wants to follow in his fathers footsteps? May be he is looking for a way out of the mess his father made with out dishonoring him. No one know since no one has his ear to listen.

Good morning.....So VoodooV, simply not a good person...

One might imagine that you've mistaken paranoid rage for a genuine concern for the people who must suffer the damaged, soon beyond-repair law-enforcement establishment in the U.S. While I can't vouch for many municipalities, I have dealt with law enforcement in multiple states since I was old enough to drive a car.
Texas has an inordinate amount of assholes in law enforcement, which has sullied or otherwise affected my opinion of peace officers (that term an oxi-moron for millions of people who have had to deal with profiling, unprovoked aggression, and general douche-baggery from the hind-brained, alpha-or-wannabe-alpha victims of abuse and racism who choose a career in "law enforcement".

We have several versions of cops here, Sheriffs, constables, state troopers, city police, game wardens, etc., all with their privilege and jurisdictions, all with varying levels of professionalism and personalities some of which are synonymous with their particular group.
I maintain, that In ALL of these branches of law enforcement due to corruption and abuse of power as the rule for over 50 years combined with the systematic granting of more and more powers to state over individual rights that the SYSTEM is inherently corrupt and anti-human rights. I have come to this conclusion in my dealings with them personally and by paying attention to the fucking world without blinders and outside of the insular framework of my own perception of how i would LIKE the world to be.

What is your personal experience in dealing with law enforcement robots? Where do you live? What is your station in life economically, socially. Are you Caucasian or a minority? All these questions beg an answer because I suppose that your exposure to the world outside of the comfort of your CONSTRUCT, is causing this consternation and judgement vomited-forth in your last comment, and I would hate to have some skewed opinion of you based on your reaction to mine on issues that have EVERYTHING to do with human rights, justice, blah blah blah, all the shit that's important to people like us, schmoes slaving for paper-tickets to buy more play-time in the world created while you were fast-fucking asleep.

Fix it instead of whining like a spoiled brat??
Well sir, when you live in a country with the majority of peeps fast-asleep with their heads up movie-stars and basketball-player's asses whose political system is a fucking joke and her government co-opted by corporate and security interests then civil disobedience or heaven-forbid, UNCIVIL should the situation necessitate is about the only reasonable, actionable, effective solution for me.
Malcolm X was right, rich, sociopathic white people suck donkey balls and run the whole fucking show.

Would you like to have a discussion on the state of the Prison system in the United States? Hand-in-hand with the men in blue are the men in brown who would, that the current model be expanded and improved upon....It's broken and you have an opinion,??

Please enlighten us all-

This has nothing to do with Equality or Controversial ?

Scandal or another synonym yes, but from a video not arguing any different opinions on a matter - there's no controversy?
And equality about what, not to be abused by cops? That is not about equality, that's human rights.

Constant vigilance? Common sense? You know you're talking about humans, right?

US has the corruption at the very highest levels (so does a lot of western societies..). They just call it Lobbyism and approve it publicly. So it's not corruption if it's legal right? Most countries that are accused of corruption, it occurs at lowest level of the government: police, civil servants etc. But when it's the high end, it's not corruption anymore..

Same goes for most crimes: you swindle hundred bucks: you're criminal, low life scum with no human rights. You swindle billions: you're a businessman, a hero of sort and you get to keep everything.

What a load of bias rubbish. Very selective quoting. The ban on fox hunting was nothing to do with human rights, but rather animal cruelty. Foxes can still be hunted, with a gun of all things. You're just not allowed to let your dogs maul them to death because that's cruel. So what they're apparently campaigning against is a load of rubbish, hunting with guns is still legal.

Oh, and so is pistol shooting - you just have to keep your gun at a gun club. The only thing that's illegal is keeping your gun at home.

As for Tony Martin, he's a nutjob. Tony Martin had his gun license revoked in 1994 because he shot at someone who was stealing his apples. Ok, so the guy was on his land and stealing fruit, but it's OK to shoot them? No. No it's not.

There are a lot of inconsistencies in his story of the incident. He claimed to have shot from the stairs having been woken by the break in. He didn't, he was shown to have shot from a downstairs doorway. He was lying in wait for them and ambushed them. He shot the kid that broke in in the back as he was trying to escape.

I'm pretty sure in America the feeling is just that the kid had it coming, he shouldn't have been there. I don't buy into that at all.

Homicide with a gun in the UK: 0.07 per 100,000

Homicide with a gun in the US: 2.97 per 100,000

US rate is more than forty times that of the UK. Which country has broken gun laws? The simple facts are that I'm safer in the UK without a gun than I am in the states with a gun.

Figures found here.