"Self-made" simply means they didn't inherit their millions. Most millionaires are "self-made".

"Legitimately"? What do you mean by that?

In the U.S., lane-splitting is not legal in most states but tolerated in many. Laws governing motorcycles vary from state to state.

Any human being has inherited the right through incarnation to anything they will and to assume the responsibility of their actions.


"Before a man speaks it is always safe to assume that he is a fool. After he speaks, it is seldom necessary to assume it."
-H. L. Mencken

I don't get how he differentiates market and investment return. Besides the market returns on stocks, commodities etc, the only meaningfully different options are a variety of government bonds (which return much less than the market at the moment) and cash, which will lose value against inflation.

Unless you leverage investment returns, you can't achieve a higher return than the market on average (evidence shows that passive investors beat active investors, exceptions exist but on average this is true). Higher leverage is just multiplying your risk though, so you're equally exposed to up and down turns over the long term. May have to check out this book but logically it makes no sense.

@Trancecoach

He focusses on inherited wealth, not earned wealth so most of your post is a bit of a red herring.

As far as advocating higher taxes, besides 70% being obvious hyperbole, you would have to assume that if he's publicly writing and advocating for more redistributive tax policies then he'd be okay with slightly higher rates at his income bracket, otherwise he's kind of going against his own interests.

In most modern countries, having kids is the relatively easy part. Being a responsible parent, on the other hand....

But then again, overcoming the challenges (sleep deprivation included) are part of what make being a parent so rewarding. At least in my case, having kids made me a stronger and better person--I learned to be more patient and more compassionate, and I learned how to push beyond my supposed limits (I used to think I couldn't survive without 8 hours a night of sleep--HAH!).

No doubt it can be a struggle at times. My grandfather used to have a T-shirt that read, "Insanity is heredity: you inherit it from your kids."

But it also has those intense moments like your daughter singing the ABC song all by herself for the first time, or always belly laughing at the fart sound you make with your palms, or telling you she loves right before she goes to sleep that make all of the hassle completely worthwhile.

*promote any means necessary for keeping the empire from killing your family's inheritance....

According to hermeneuticians, economics is apparently a matter of popular opinion. Ostriches. Like someone shot in the belly but continuing to work, ignoring the fact that he's bleeding out does not obviate the fact.

Collectivist anarchy cannot exist, unless what you mean by "anarchy" is chaos, for reasons already stated. But in the abstract, yes, you can advocate some sort of incoherence like anarcho-syndcalism and still call it anarchy. That's why some like to specify and call the (in my opinion) more coherent and desirable anarchism, libertarian anarchy or anarcho-capitalism, or free market anarchism, or voluntaryism. Any type of communalism or syndicate requires rulers to administer the "communal," which, unless unanimously selected, is in direct contrast with the purpose of anarchism (which means "without rulers"). And then you have the problem of coming up with and enforcing the "communal" rules without engaging in aggression.

Perhaps "we are getting snagged on definitions." I am not clear on your position so it could be the disagreements have to do with definitions. If you redefine socialism in a non-Marxist way, maybe you can make libertarian socialism coherent.

If you can come up with a social organization that involves zero initiation of violence against persons or their property, then whatever you want to call it, it agrees with libertarian anarchy.

Let me define the basic principle of the anarchism that I favor, to avoid semantic problems: non-aggression means never initiating violence against any individual or their property.
Property can only be a scarce resource. Non-scarce resources cannot be property or owned. You acquire property through homesteading, first appropriation, voluntary trade, or inheritance.
Legally, you can enforce contracts/voluntary agreements, and punish any violations of a person's "self" or property, meaning you can enforce non-aggression.
This view I call anarchy-capitalism, libertarian anarchy, or voluntaryism.
Or free market anarchy.

Lamarckian inheritance has been a dirty word for a long time, but recently studies of DNA methylation and its role in epigenetic inheritance have, at least to some small degree, redeemed him

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/

His Darwin/Wallace descriptions is rather unfair on Darwin, Darwin had been working for 20 years on what became "The Origin of Species" when he received Wallace's letter, He already had his theory of natural selection worked out, he just hadn't actually published yet. This is a pretty well known historical fact, based on extensive documentation(Darwins notes/letter etc, see http://darwin-online.org.uk/ .

Also the jump to "nazi Germany" is complete bullshit. If natural selection looks like any political system it would have to be unregulated capitalism or total anarchy. Both of which might turn out to be very bad, but why should you base a political system on natural selection anyway? He confuses Darwinism with "social Darwinism" which really has nothing to do with Darwin or his theory. At best, it was a complete misreading of the theory, confusing strength/looks/class with fitness and using it as an excuse to sterilize and or kill the "unwanted" and "weak". But even social darwinism really had nothing to do with "nazi germany", As the extermination of the jews were largely based on religiously inspired resentments and superstitions, combined with an exploitation of the frustrated german people, looking to place the blame for their post WW1 plight.

Seems like this guy also misunderstands why Darwin/Wallace is credited with "discovering evolution". Its correct that they didnt, but neither did Lamarck, really, as it was obvious for some time that animals seemed to have looked differently in the past, and that something had changed over time. What Darwin and Wallace discovered was the mechanism: How evolution actually works, why it works, and so on. Lamarck also presented a mechanism (inheritance of acquired traits), but it turned out to be wrong.

@newtboy Chingy's initial statement was not directed at you personally, I can maybe see why you thought it might but you were mistaken. (he didn't quote or reference you at any stage)

What he was trying to say was that the issue here is not specific to Christianity (or for that matter any other religion) but rather with the mindless repetition of inherited arguments and belief systems (i.e. people not truly thinking for themselves or being able to operate outside of the box they have built for themselves).

Atheists etc. are frequently guilty of the same thing; he was simply suggesting that it's unproductive to reduce the problem to paradigm A. vs paradigm B. when in truth its the very act of limiting ones perception and consciousness to one particular paradigm that causes the problem.

In other words the Pastor is an asshat not because he is a Christian but rather because he is only capable of understanding the world via the adopted assumptions of others. A fault which can be levelled at virtually any system of understanding when practised by those who have not yet understood the entirely relativistic nature of such systems.

This is why he referred to the inevitable banter as "boring and tired". For most it becomes simply "Christianity bad atheism good" (or visa versa or whatever). The truth of the matter is far more complex and moreover is universal to all participants.


@chingalera You are far too clever for your own good sometimes! I'd say something about "staring unto the abyss..." but I know full well you already understand this inescapable compromise when "fighting monsters".

Tread softly though brother, even the best of us are always a mere stumble from falling back unto the darkness we seek to banish...

OMFG... the threads... First Bob calls liberals two faced, but Conservatives were upset at the Dixie Chicks when they spoke out against Bush and his wars. Many conservatives demanded the Dixie Chips sponsors drop them and had large CD burning events, all over the fact they spoke their mind and their beliefs. Now these same people are upset at A&E for suspending a guy (a rather worthless suspension since the upcoming season is already filmed and he's already in it, and it is making free publicity for a stupid show about rich people).

This isn't a free speech issue. He isn't in jail for espousing anti-gay and racist remarks. He was suspended for saying something that made his part time employer look bad. Food Network fired Paula Dean. There was a PR lady who was going to Africa on a business trip that got fired after she tweeted she hopes she doesn't get AIDS, but no problem since she's white. You represent your company, officially or not, and make them look bad, your employer can fire you. You can say what you want, but sometimes that speech has consequences. A&E created the Duck Dynasty image, he made their network look bad, they have the right to suspend him... suspend, they didn't even fully fire him. Were they really outraged they would have pulled the show or edited him out of the upcoming season, but they didn't do any of that. They made a publicity grabbing move to suspend him.

This video also highlights the one key point I've been saying the whole time. That Jesus Himself said it is impossible for a rich man to get into heaven, doesn't matter if they want to or do follow Him, they have their reward here, and won't have one in Heaven. So Phil goes off on how gays are "full of murder" and how they won't inherit the Kingdom of God, but ignores that part where Jesus Himself said that people like Phil won't go to Heaven.

Then high, blaming it on some Atheist agenda. The same thing would have happened regardless of what religion or lack there of he had. This has nothing to do with Atheist wanting to make Christians look bad, as there is plenty of outrage over what he said in many Christian circles... you do know most liberals are Christian as well. Yes, most Atheist tend to be liberal, but the largest voting block of Democrats and Greens are Christian. People who take the Bible as the literal word of God, and believe Jesus was serious when He said to help the needy and poor, that the rich won't go to Heaven, that blessed are the peacemaker and not the warmongering Republicans, that when you pray, to pray in secret and not make a show of it the way modern Conservatives do, that know the reason for the destruction of Sodom according to the Bible was that "she was a land of plenty and did nothing to help the needy and poor", basically full of modern Conservatives, that the thing with the Angels happened after the city was condemned to be destroyed and they were there to rescue Lot's family, before Lot pulled the father of the year by offering his young daughters (think Olson Twins) over the angelic warriors of God (think Conan the Barbarian and Rambo) with magical powers, rather than just a simple "no". Anyhow, plenty of Christians are upset at what Phil said, because it makes Christians look bad, he not only bashed gays, but thought blacks were fine under the old Jim Crow era laws, thought Nazis were Jesus free, though Jesus and the Bible was their main defense for all they did... He basically made the Conservative Christians look like they ignore the main teaching of Jesus which was to Love one another. Jesus hung out with the sinners and tax collectors and told them of the love of God, not how God is going to condemn them all to Hell. If Jesus was alive in modern day America, he'd be hanging out in San Francisco talking about the love of God, not fighting to deny them equal rights under the law.

And of course Shiny... The controversy with Chick-fil-a isn't so much what some stupid old rich man says, he also made it clear that was the position of the company as a whole. And that anti-gay money was going to organizations that actively campaign not only to make being gay illegal in the US, in other countries where it is gay and punishable by death, they campaign to keep the death penalty attached to it. That said, at least Siny agrees that A&E had no choice... though, based on past posts, I don't think Shiny sees that the whole modern day Conservative movement is driven by the greed factor, that modern Christian Conservatives are willing to toss out every government program to help the needy and the poor so that they can give tax breaks to the rich...

It's all a free publicity stunt. I'm sure A&E will cave in, or Phil will issue some semi apology, "like I still believe it is a sin, but I'm sorry I likened them to murderers and I'm sorry about offending any blacks, I was just noting my personal observations growing up" type thing and he'll continue to rake in millions, going against the very Jesus he claims to follow... and he'll be right back on.

Meh, I can't blame these sad sacks for the shit they inherited.

OTOH, I totally blame them for having shit music and fashion sense.

Get the fuck off my lawn

About 4 minutes was just repeat and trying to come to a punchline that we all realised.. and then it never came.

To Chingalera: Slaves are slaves, it is and always has been wrong no matter how well you treat them. The point of this story is not slavery but inequality that's inherit in the Old Testament and it's many stories.. Men were not created to be equal, according to bible but simply who ever told the story was superior and had Gods given rights to be superior, no matter what they did to other tribes, it was justified. Kind of like.. well.. christian countries do: be equal and fair towards the people inside your country.

Inheritance is exponential - if you're born with a million dollars it's a lot easier to make a million dollars than if you're born with nothing. So the families that obsess about gold, rent seek and hoard wealth selfishly rule by default after a few generations, and the ones that share wealth with the disadvantaged and think about other things (arts, science, philosophy, engineering, humanitarian action or just a fair days work for a fair days pay) are left increasingly poor.

Charitable giving as a proportion of income is an INVERSE CURVE- the more you have the less you give.

Every 3 or 4 hundred years the shit hits the fan and the system is reset through widespread bloodletting. This has been true for ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY. Why would would this time be different?

Remember, Rupert Sheldrake *actually believes* in psychic powers.

In this video he sets up a bunch of straw-men arguments to knock down. Just by using (and abusing) the language of science and framing it inwords like "dogma" that we associate with religion doesn't mean that anything else you have to propose has any validity.

He believes that by "morphic resonance" that "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind".

Hmmm. I'm waiting or your peer reviewed paper on this with interest.

There is an inherit problem when dealing with police. They can ask your ID, you are not required to do so. But when you refuse, they got more reasons to ask for that ID. Here, they can knock on your door and ask if they can come in. If you refuse, that's enough ground for a search. "Why are you refusing?" is a question that has no answers. "Just because" is not enough. This aspect is heavily abused by law enforcement every where in the world and causes more and more problems. If everyone started to it, we would be good but we still have over whelming majority that says "if you ain't got nothing to hide.."