So My audience is larger than CNN, MSNBC etc. I know they have shit ratings but still bigger than me.

So you watched this trial ?
You saw what happened?
You know this kid is radicalized?
You know he is a trump nut case?


"fact free hyper partisan nonsense and bemoan a lack of unbiased truth!? " Your talking about those no fact media outlets, not me


And you facts came from where? Your ass?

@eoe
jesus christ dude..
could you be any more presumptuous?

first off,i didnt call you out specifically.
i rather enjoyed you and newts exchange,but my commentary was not addressing nor interjecting in that conversation.

second,the only argument (if you even want to call it that) that i proposed was to cut the moral absolutes out,because they are bullshit.

now maybe you do not engage in the morality argument that many ..MANY ...vegans DO attempt to utilize to better make their point,and hats off to you if you see the hypocrisy of such a tactic.

now please understand i am not ignoring that there is a morality factor in being a vegan and i totally respect that.what i am stating is to not become burdened with absolutes and attempting to use morality to further a position..or you will be called out on it and rightly so.

thirdly,
your comment is actually a straw man,not mine.
you posit a position i didnt take in order to refute that imaginary position.

which you took a step further by accusing me of not addressing certain aspects of an argument that i only tacitly referred to and in no specific or detailed way.

in fact almost your entire comment towards me is a fabricated argument that i never had with you.

so who are you arguing/debating with?
because i can say with some authority that it is not me.

maybe you took my tone or words as a direct assault on you or what you have written,but as anybody here will attest,i have no problem calling someone out directly.conversely,i have no problem being called out (if my fly is open,please let me know).

so if that is the case,allow me to offer an olive branch:
my girlfriend of many years is a devout vegan.
so i am full aware of the reasons why she became a vegan (at the tender age of seven,no shit) and for her the decision was mostly a moral one i.e:cruelty,abuse etc etc.

when we first started dating she attempted to use every tactic in the book to get me to see the barbarity in my callous and cruel meat eating ways.she would send me videos of the most horrific abuse of animals,slaughterhouse horror stories..i am sure you may be familiar with many of her tactics in attempting to reveal the moral imperative to stop this torture and abuse.

which i responded (much like alluded to in my original comment) by showing her videos of the horrific abuses perpetrated upon human beings just so she could have cheap clothing and those electronic gadgets she loves so much.

which of course made her feel absolute,crushing guilt.almost to the point where it paralyzed her.because she is an adorable sweetheart who genuinely cares for not only people but animals.

which leads me to the main point i was making:
you cannot make a vegan argument based solely on moral absolutes,because it will fall apart within seconds and you come across as a pretentious twat.

so YOU can make the decision to be a vegan based on moral grounds and that is totally acceptable,but you cannot take the moral high ground when debating veganism to further a point,because we ALL bear responsibility in the suffering of others.be they animal or human.

do you see what i am saying?

if you choose to indulge moral absolutes,then you will be exposed as a hypocrite,because when we use absolutes,that metric has to be applied equally to all factors of living.

which leaves us with the "distinctions" and the reason i say those are boring is because it becomes a narcissistic exercise of self-righteous twattery.

i recycle.
i refuse to shop at walmart.
i do not eat fast food.
i only buy organic.
i try to shop local.

all these things i do,not because they actually make a difference,but rather they make me feel better about myself.it gives me the "feel goods".even though i am full aware that in the larger picture,what i am doing means next to nothing.

but it means something to me.
and i think that is really the only real argument a vegan has to rely on to express their viewpoint.

i have seen the videos.
i am aware how awful,cruel and barbaric farming animals can be,but i like bacon.

i am an asshole.

Can we get a *Canada here?

Yeah, I know siftie, not me. Someone you LIKE can do it.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'lily allen, its not me its you, second album, first single' to 'lily allen, its not me its you, second album, first single, materialism' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^CreamKreatorAlong with handicapped, mentally ill, anybody really who can't be a good capitalist and take care of them selves without any help from anybody.

First of all, it is the noobiest of noob mistakes to say that capitalists can't be charitable. Charity can ONLY occur from capitalist money because it is a voluntary relinquishment by definition. Second, the only systems in which people become that destitute on average are socialist systems where production is punished and idleness is rewarded until there is very little productivity to actually be divided. Even I might feign illness and take from the pot you're so eager to fill for me. What are you going to do to stop people from doing that? Who is this grand assessor of value of which you speak?

I know, let's copy Finland, people who live much more modestly, spend 1% what we do on national defense, and don't have reserve currency priveleges, a truly insane example of socialism that could "work for us".

Where does that lead us? Education is the next victim. No more decent public schools, everything is privatized, that's capitalism!

Good, the whole problem with public schools is that it is a complex service financed on forcible appropriations. Normal businesses fear losing customers. These people don't. I've read articles of California superintendents embezzling thousands and then keep their pensions when they get out of prison. That's just the worst of the worst. The union collusion and retained voting rights has made it almost impossible to get teachers to eliminate themselves or take pay cuts. People are forced to pay their salaries and moving away from a good job is an uncertain substitute for true choice. Vouchers would be a huge step forward because it puts the spending power with the consumer instead of the provider. Teachers and those who hire them would suddenly fear losing business to other schools and would no longer be able to suck with impunity.

Capitalism doesn't work. Communism didn't work. Even pure socialism won't work. Any political ideology won't work by itself. They need to be mixed up, democratic capitalist socialism would be somewhere closer to perfect society.


Capitalism isn't a system of government, it's simply a term referring to the percentage of earnings controlled by earners. Socialism is the percentage of earnings controlled by non-earners. Nobody who advocates capitalism truly believes in taxless anarchy without courts or national defense. What we don't want is the government being used as a conduit to incentivize one legal behavior over another or benefit one business at the expense of another. You and everyone on this forum continue to vote for obvious corporatists, not me.

Then you throw around the term "democracy," big red flag for anyone who truly understands government. Democracy is mob rule. Clearly, some things should not be decided on a majority vote. That's why we are a REPUBLIC with a paper dictator called a constitution. The more we keep disobeying it, the more miserable we're going to become.

Or you can take the one thing out of that equation that causes pain and suffering more than any idea in the history of man: Money.



That's nonsense. Money is a commonly accepted medium of exchange to defeat the inefficiency of barter. It is, in essence, a product that is a placeholder for other products. That was truer when we were on gold than now, but still... Are you saying you don't want people to make stuff and trade with each other? Stop watching TV and read "Economics in One Lesson." It's only $10 on amazon.

All you people do is post videos of pissed off protesters who take positions without understanding them. Weaksauce.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'lily allen, its not you its me' to 'lily allen, its not me its you' - edited by Throbbin

Tags for this video have been changed from 'its not you its me, not fair, jools holland' to 'its not me its you, not fair, jools holland' - edited by Ornthoron

Tags for this video have been changed from 'lily allen, its not me its you, fuck you very much' to 'gwb, george bush tribute, lily allen, its not me its you, fuck you very much' - edited by EDD

The power that the "extremists" want is the power that their "enemies" have:

The power and technology to be able to do whatever, to whomever.

Right now, that power lies with the US and "allies". Might is our right.

The fear is so great only because THEY KNOW ('they' meaning the ones in true "power", certainly not me unless you count the power of my sexy individualism) that these "extremists" could end up possessing "their stuff".

If the "extremists" were in charge, things would just even out in a different way, resistance would arise, and the battle would continue.

That's why the only way to stop this is give people opportunities to educate themselves and the tools to live their lives in peace... which is why the internet is so god damn important... perhaps the single most important thing besides soap.

Also, caring helps. And hugs. Forgive the quotes; I use them around nonsense words that have different meanings depending on your perspective.

i think a lot of the posters here need to banned from real life.

1. condemning someone for being anti-homosexual is equally as hateful as condemning someone for being pro-homosexual.
2. failure to cope with "irritants" is just plain immature, and thats an opinion so don't even bother arguing against it.
3. captainplanet420, despite a terrible good/bad post ratio, puts out more "quality" posts than most users here. what does that say about most users here?
4. if you take offense to my saying most of the comments here are "trash," how many star points does it take to get a high horse which permits you to declare his comments "trash" but not me of you?
5. "hate speech" is defined as "speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group" which i believe makes 95% of the posters in this thread guilty of the same crime captainplanet420 is being charged with.
6. if you are going to apply some kind of "law" here, you should at least be consistent. from my perspective, this "community" is just like a group of middle schoolers who won't let the fat kid play basketball with them because "he ruins the game."
7. my advice for captainplanet420 would be to post links to videosift all over the highest ranked videos on youtube so that he can bring over some "enemies of my enemy.." since this "community" has basically devolved into a pitchfork wielding witch hunt. the only chance a witch has in a lynch mob is to get more witches than "townsfolk".

not everyone has a natural desire to believe in the Easter Bunny. God is different. Universal. Across cultures, even if they never met. You're just poking fun at genuine religious belief and feeling, by using a ridiculous comparison that doesn't actually compare.

I'm not poking fun at you. I believe that both the Easter Bunny and God are imaginary. You shouldn't accuse someone of being insulting for simply stating their beliefs.

Also, theology is not universal; it varies radically from culture to culture as anyone who has studied comparative religion will tell you.

and also we FEEL the supernatural.. but some people aren't listening and don't count it as evidence.

Just because you feel it, doesn't mean that it's real. Are you open to the possibility that God is just a feeling - a figment of your imagination?

Why do people NOT want to believe the supernatural?

Belief is an either/or proposition. People who have given this some thought either DO or DO NOT believe in God. Want is irrelevant.

"Because they were taught in school in a certain restrictive way that cut off their imagination."

I make my living on my imagination. I'm not sure how public schools are in Eastern Europe, but in America, teachers are not allowed to push Atheism or Theism on kids. We give our students the freedom to make their own decisions on such matters.

"They turn their back on god and then say "i can't see god! so he doesn't exist!"

Again, this would not be allowed in American Public schools. If teachers say that in your country, then they are wrong to do so.

what animosity? I just don't think science will ever "prove" atheism, that's studpid, and i don't think the scientific method is compatible with investigation of the spirit, i think science will progress until it discovers God.

Science won't ever 'prove' anything, because science deals in hypothesis' and theories, which are always up for debate. Science can't prove or disprove God, it can only give you probability.

and you call it "intangible assumptions" whereas i call it "things i feel in my heart and in my gut, which is generally much more reliable than my head or wikipedia"

I'm going to let Steven Colbert cover this one.

"The gut. That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works."


no. you just hear "anti science" in my writing somehow, you are pushing the polarisation on me, not me on you.

You are getting to the heart of one of the biggest double standards in the theological dialog. When a Theist says 'I believe in God', It is accepted as their point of view without without argument. When an Atheist says "I don't believe in God", Atheists take it as an attack and an insult. Do you see the problem with what you are doing here?

Science isn't currently capable of contradicting my beliefs, and i believe it never will be.

Science says that God is extremely improbable. Scientific theory says that simple beings evolve into more complex beings and never the other way around. Are you OK with this?

euphemism scheuphemism. makes very little difference to me. you just use the word euphemism in an attempt to degrade the idea. God is Love. God is a euphemism for Love. What's the difference? It's all abstract.

Again, you are offended by my beliefs. I'm not attempting to do anything other than tell you my opinion, so please don't accuse me of insulting you.


FWIW i quit going to (anglican) church when i was about 8, because church is a waste of time. I remember we had to draw round our hands and write "Thankyou God for giving me hands". I thought this was absurd, because that implies that god is some kind of asshole who denies some people hands for no reason and i am supposed to be grateful he didn't deny me MY hands? Horrible.

I'm with ya here.

In summary, i think you are allergic to the concept of god, because you have been exposed to so much god related bullshit.

I've studied (and continue to study) religion very thoroughly and not come to any of these conclusions in haste or out of prejudice. I see the value of religion, but my 'gut' tells me God doesn't exist. I don't judge all religious people by the ignorant actions of Bush or bin Laden, or the ignorant words of Dobson or Fahrakahn, in fact I have some dear friends who are religious.


In summary, I think you were taught..

I think you were taught as well.

But you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Science and God together in your brain (and heart) helps you understand the world a lot better than science alone.

Atheists don't believe in God, that means there is neither baby nor bathwater to throw out. You can't throw something out that you don't possess.


Maybe science will catch up, but if science can explain love, then you will say it "disproved" god and i will say it "discovered" god.

I'm sure you could easily find a detailed explanation of the physical and psychological aspects of love if you are interested in it. I'm not sure what your point is, as there is no debate (that I know of) on the explanation of love.

Also, once again, I'm not interested in disproving God or proving you wrong. I'm OK with whatever you believe or want to believe. I'm not trying to convert you.

hope that makes some kind of sense.

I get where you are coming from, but it looks like our discussion is just going in circles. Thanks for the good discussion.

Peace.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Humans believe a lot of crazy sh*t. (Alien abductions, ghosts, the yeti, the Loch-Ness Monster, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, The Secret, Amway, and countless absurd 911 conspiracies to name a few.) I don't think that a natural desire to believe in any of these things provides any evidence that these things exist. (IMO) The same goes for God.
not everyone has a natural desire to believe in the Easter Bunny. God is different. Universal. Across cultures, even if they never met.
You're just poking fun at genuine religious belief and feeling, by using a ridiculous comparison that doesn't actually compare.


Why do humans want to believe in the supernatural? Because the supernatural is exiting, mysterious, different and most of all AWESOME, but that doesn't make it real. We are imaginative creatures.

and also we FEEL the supernatural.. but some people aren't listening and don't count it as evidence.

Why do people NOT want to believe the supernatural? Because they were taught in school in a certain restrictive way that cut off their imagination. Then they get all excited about being superior to the "stupid" religious people.
They turn their back on god and then say "i can't see god! so he doesn't exist!"


I think your animosity towards science in misguided. Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive, in fact, if religion is to be believe, they are one in the same.

what animosity? I just don't think science will ever "prove" atheism, that's studpid, and i don't think the scientific method is compatible with investigation of the spirit, i think science will progress until it discovers God.
then maybe there will be a big shiny display of wonder, nintendo style and then everything explodes and we start again hahaha.


If religion is to be believed, then science would be the best way to understand how God put this universe together. Rather than judge science by intangible assumptions about God, perhaps it would be better to use science as a way to better understand God.

yes. that is what i do. but there are limits. there is no "happiness meter" just theories about endorphins. science has to get a lot more advanced before we understand these things. In the meantime, why not refer to religion and art, which describes the human condition much better than science does.

and you call it "intangible assumptions" whereas i call it "things i feel in my heart and in my gut, which is generally much more reliable than my head or wikipedia"


I like and agree with your 'fuck it' definition of faith, but most people who share that definition don't bother to argue about science, because it is irrelevant to their world view. You, on the other hand, seem to be genuinely bothered by the fact that science contradicts some of your personal beliefs. I think you have an internal conflict to work out here. (IMO) This inner conflict means you are a thoughtful person.

no. you just hear "anti science" in my writing somehow, you are pushing the polarisation on me, not me on you.

science does NOT contradict any of my beliefs, in fact i would say in the last century science started to prove my beliefs... think fractals, quantum mechanics, string theory, that kind of thing. Science isn't currently capable of contradicting my beliefs, and i believe it never will be.


Minor distinction. You see God as time/space/etc.; I see God as a euphemism for time/space/etc..

euphemism scheuphemism. makes very little difference to me. you just use the word euphemism in an attempt to degrade the idea. God is Love. God is a euphemism for Love. What's the difference? It's all abstract.


FWIW, I was baptized Catholic and believed in God until I was 12 or 13 years old.

Ahh the catholic church.
FWIW i quit going to (anglican) church when i was about 8, because church is a waste of time. I remember we had to draw round our hands and write "Thankyou God for giving me hands". I thought this was absurd, because that implies that god is some kind of asshole who denies some people hands for no reason and i am supposed to be grateful he didn't deny me MY hands? Horrible.

I studied physics and maths till i was 18. Then i realised that was probably a waste of time as well

In summary, i think you are allergic to the concept of god, because you have been exposed to so much god related bullshit. But you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Science and God together in your brain (and heart) helps you understand the world a lot better than science alone. Maybe science will catch up, but if science can explain love, then you will say it "disproved" god and i will say it "discovered" god.

hope that makes some kind of sense.

You say that my analogies are too simplistic. Ironically, I feel the same about you guys thinking that democracy would fit in so well and just magically turn things around in Russia. Matter is not that simple.

(oh and about Saudi arabia having poverty etc. Well so does United States, UK, France, Germany and all those ghettos in Los Angeles and any other big cities. Every country still has a poverty class. And those who don't are socialist nations, who still have something similar like drug addicts. This is a dead argument.)

And again, Russians feel that they've already tried democracy a go and failed (you can argue that they did it wrong, but nonetheless that's how they feel right now). And Putin's way of doing things seems to work so far. So right now the thought of changing a government policy in middle of positive progression and economic recovery isn't too popular in Moscow as of this moment.

Ultimately it's not me that you should argue against, it's the popular voice of Russia. The ones clamoring democracy are not your regular Joes who suffered through depression of 90's, and likes the change of pace they have right now. But these overly educated people (usually super pro-western because they got rich and successful in the west *cough Garry Kasparov *cough) who has this fantasy view of the 'perfect world', and value philosophical BS over practicality.

The song title means "Not with me", it talks of a love that is gone.

Chorus:
It's not with me, it's not with me, that you dance with in the bar
It's not me, it's not me, that you are kissing gently...

our household is counting down the days until Wii's release ... not me, mind you!