>> ^spoco2:

Yeah, I'm kinda siding with dag on this... although also, I think it's not even so much it being 'sweet', but rather I'm getting sick of all of these 'look at us' videos of proposals. Why can't you do an awesome proposal to your woman without having to have your 'awesomeness' confirmed to you by thousands of strangers? Why can't you do a wonderful thing for her and then... oh, I dunno... NOT share it on the internet?
For all those that have done things like that, and kept it to themselves, bravo.
I liked the way I proposed to my wife, but I'm not going to detail it here, and I didn't have a group of people filming it, all in the hope that people say what a wonderful bloody guy I am.
Grump grump grump.
So... where's a cute kitten video?


I know someone who's jealous...

As an extremely non religious type, I say what's the bleeding harm..? If it keeps her relatively calm and not running around screaming, I wouldn't care if she's yelling out to Jesus, masturbating or putting tampons up her nose...

I do not share her belief but do not begrudge her expressing it at a time when her life (and possibly the lives of other people dear to her, we don't know) is in danger. Stop being so fucking intolerant, we don't need a westboro brand of aetheist...

Yeah, I'm kinda siding with dag on this... although also, I think it's not even so much it being 'sweet', but rather I'm getting sick of all of these 'look at us' videos of proposals. Why can't you do an awesome proposal to your woman without having to have your 'awesomeness' confirmed to you by thousands of strangers? Why can't you do a wonderful thing for her and then... oh, I dunno... NOT share it on the internet?

For all those that have done things like that, and kept it to themselves, bravo.

I liked the way I proposed to my wife, but I'm not going to detail it here, and I didn't have a group of people filming it, all in the hope that people say what a wonderful bloody guy I am.

Grump grump grump.

So... where's a cute kitten video?

ah my friend...
remember it was you who asked me to help you understand my faith.
and i did so openly and honestly and with the total understanding that you would wholeheartedly disagree.
were you looking for some form of evidence?
i did not promise you any.
what we have here is a philosophical discussion.
i thought that was something self-evident.
we are discussion an intangible:faith.

reading your response i am puzzled at the volume of presumption based on very little.
much of which i had already addressed.
what were you trying to accomplish in your response?
what was your intent with all this?
i have been open,honest and put myself out there because you were respectful and curious.
i held no illusions you would ever agree with how i viewed things but i did think that maybe if i shared you would at least understand where i was coming from.
and that is always a good thing.

but i have to say for someone so adamant about evidence and research you presume volumes based on little or no information.you took it waaay past what i offered and formulated your own dynamic.
and while it kind of irritates me and i dont feel i should have to point this out,
i shall anyways...just because....

1.(No, I don’t suspect that you are anti-research, I suspect that you don’t value research or the scientific method as much as people should. If you did, you would find no value in faith.)
-i already stated that when new information is gained.the paradigm is changed.of course i value research but maybe i am not as schooled as you.maybe i dont have access or was unaware of certain research.
did this not even occur to you?
then you go on to ostracize EVERYBODY who does not value research the way you do and that if we did we would find no value in faith.then my friend..you dont have the first clue about faith (which means i have failed from the get-go..lol).but has the arrogance of this statement eluded you?you are judging people based on YOUR perceptions.

2.I suspect that you don’t read many science books, if any. I suspect that you don’t follow the most recent information coming out of neural science research labs.
-now on this i will agree.your suspicions would be correct.not because i avoid them but because i dont follow them.my studies are in cultural religious history,american history,world history,US and european governments and comparative religions.(and of course art,poetry and music).
if you have some suggestions and in video format i would be delighted to watch and learn.

3.I suspect that the only research that you are primarily interested in is the kind of research that supports your pre-existing idea of the nature of reality. I suspect that you don’t actually understand the scientific method. I suspect that you’ve never read “The Demon Haunted World”.
-and you base this presumption on what...exactly? when i have clearly stated the opposite.do i need to point out that i am a man of faith who frequents a predominantly atheist web site? i have never even heard of "demon haunted world" what is it about? it sounds interesting.

4.I suspect that you don’t really understand causation verses correlation.
-ok..now you are just being snide.many religious folk fall into this trap..i am not one of them."see? there is your evidence!".i thought you would understand what i was implying.i guess i was wrong.

5.I suspect that you generally aren’t very skeptically minded and that your definition of “evidence” is loosely constructed.
-again.what are you basing this on? because i have faith? is THAT what you are basing this presumption on? i addressed this in my letter to you.

6.I suspect that you aren’t actually doing anything to falsify your beliefs. I suspect that you identify with your beliefs to the degree that if realized that they weren’t true you would feel a sense of loss of personal identity. I suspect that you value any answer, even if it’s potentially incorrect, over no answer at all. I suspect that you would rather believe in “spirit” than to disbelieve it because, as I suspect, it makes you feel good and it gives you the answer that you want.
-are you projecting? or having a conversation with a different person and sent this to me? if my beliefs (which just by using that word means i have utterly failed to convey how i view things)were proven to be false..then they would be false.i would not curl into a ball and cry like a little girl.my faith is expressed through who i am but is not integrally me as a person.my faith is neither stagnant nor static but flows,drifts and morphs as time goes on.and to say how my faith in spirit makes me feel.well you are just guessing based on little or no information.i find this particularly hypocritical of how you present yourself.you have no idea HOW i feel or how i would react if it turns out that there is no spirit.come on man..you are better than this particularly nasty nugget.

7.I suspect that you like the writings of Deepak Chopra and that you probably like movies "The Secret" and "What the Bleep Do We Know". I suspect that you have very little respect for truth and that your beliefs are more about perception rather than what can be known to be factual.
-ok.here is where you literally take the gold for presumption.deepok chopra? really?
let me explain something so we are crystal clear here.every and all of my philosophies have been hard won.while the revelations may have been a gift my understanding of them has taken me on paths and roads you cannot even BEGIN to understand (or maybe you can.my turn to assume).my wisdom has been hard won,epic battles with my own self and the world around me.scars upon scars to garner the wisdom i now hold and the path i walk is a solitary one. NOT one i read from deepok fucking chopra.
i find the sciences fascinating and consume as often as i can with my limited understanding.i wish my curiosity for these things had not blossomed so late in my life but for 12 years i have been absolutely ravenous for information and for you to suggest that somehow i avoid the truth because it may disprove my beliefs..
aw fuck you man..thats hubris times ten and just plain fucking wrong.you are painting a picture on how you perceive me and i gotta tell ya man.that person you are picturing? it aint me.
i am a poet my friend and everything i do,say or relate to is all about the truth.in everything.. and that includes..ESPECIALLY..includes..self deception.
read my poem.its right here on my page under my favorite video.my first published actually.
and you included the SECRET? for real? let me tell ya and i say this often (ask my friends who read that garbage) if i ever meet the authors, i am slapping them dead in the face.may not be the same reason you would but we can do it as a dynamic duo../SMACK.

my friend,
you state the all importance of evidence.the absolute value of truth based on facts and testable results.yet what you have done to here is base your opinion on almost no evidence nor facts.
you have judged me falsely.

now.lets move on to the questions.understand i asked them not looking for the correct answer but rather how you would respond to them.because there really is no "correct" answer,only what we know up to this point.
1.What is ego? I don’t know. I don’t study neurological brain functions as much as I wish I had the time for. The thing is, I’m not the one providing a bunch of nonsense answer about how it’s some sort of separate entity apart from myself, or that it has its own wants and desires part from my own. The burden of proof rests on the person making those claims.
-berticus could answer this more scientifically than i could and since you do not believe in spirit any further discussion would be redundant.
my stance is that the ego is who you THINK you are,not who you actually are.i would elaborate but i dont think you would respect any of my conclusions.which are mostly anecdotal and not actual evidence.

2.What is reality? From Wikipedia “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.” I would use that definition. I would also say that we absolutely can know what is real vs. what is not real by performing rigorous investigations into phenomenon that we observe and that during these investigations we use the scientific method to keep us from lying to ourselves. Contrary to the beliefs of people of “spirituality” and post-modernists, there are things that we can call objectively real and there is such thing as truth, that knowing the truth requires hardcore investigation and that once you know the truth, at least to a very high degree of certainty, you can know what is not true. By definition, reality is the collection of things and phenomenon that are real. Things like fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, gods, etc, aren't known to be real, they don't really exist, they aren't a part of reality. Sure, the idea of those things is real, but those things themselves aren't.
-we dont fully know.that is the correct answer.we only know what we know by our standards and abilities to date.reality keeps becoming more and more grander and complex as we dig deeper and reveal more.this is an ongoing project and the rabbit hole keeps getting deeper.this is something that really excites and fascinates me.look at how much of reality we have uncovered in the past 100 years.dont you find it all fascinating?what was once unknown is becoming known and things never even suspected are becoming possibilities.that is just too awesome.

3.What is consciousness? It sounds as if you’re asking me what consciousness is as if consciousness is a thing. Consciousness isn’t a thing; it’s a bi-product of certain biological systems and it can be affected and manipulated by various means. It’s a collective brain state. Consciousness doesn’t exist somewhere in the universe and we’re interacting with it and even if that were true, there isn’t any actual evidence of that being the case. In humans, it is just the sense of awareness of one’s self with respect to others and of the relationship between the mind and the world that we interact with. You talk about consciousness as if it’s some sort of mystical force; it just sounds like magical thinking, attributing animal qualities to the universe. There is nothing magical or mystical about it. This notion that consciousness and the ego are somehow “outside” of us or separate from who we “are” is just a fantasy similar to fairies and unicorns. I know people that believe in actual fairies, the kind with wings, who control certain aspects of our lives. I put spirituality in the same exact camp as belief in fairies, there just isn’t any evidence that it’s actually true.
-consciousness is a subject that is still discussed in philosophical and theosophical schools.just like the subject of reality we dont fully know.we suspect and there have been great strides in understanding but at the end of the day...still dont really know.and i do not speak of something "outside" sorry if i came across that way.must have been a tad confusing for you,but consciousness is another rabbit hole.the more we learn the bigger the picture gets.which again..fascinates me.if you want to play around with reality and consciousness drop some acid,or mescaline,shrooms even and let creation melt like a chocolate sundae on a hot summers day.there are levels of consciousness and awareness and everybodys is different.theories that plants have a form of consciousness and we all pretty much agree that animals have a consciousness.

4.Who am I? I could say that I am who I define myself to be based on what information that I have about myself combined with the model of myself that is retained in other people’s minds whom I interact with and also the collective actions that I’ve taken and continue to take. It just seems like you’re adding a layer of mysticism over the nature of humans, as if there is something magical about humans over other primates, or other carbon based life forms. Again, there is nothing mystical or magical about who people are.
do you let everyone tell you how to act?
i tease...
this is a very scientific..and BORING... answer.and very,very one dimensional.but it has the value of allowing me a peek into your inner workings.so i thank you.
this is actually an exercise in self-reflection.was meant to make you think about just you and who you were for a second (mostly i get people telling me their occupation).
short..to the point..and very boring.
while we may be more self-aware than other animals i never stated we were magical beings,unless you count my faith in spirit and if thats the case...fair enough.
i am nothing special and hold no hidden secret key to the temples of delight and neither are you.i deal with everybody based on that assumption.

now lets deal with your conclusion:
1.The reason why I suspect that you are not scientifically minded is because you’re prepared to dismiss ongoing research which may or may not be conclusive but you’re willing to provide your own answers and form your own beliefs based on your own subjective experiences.
-where have i dismissed science that has been proven to be factual?or even remotely hinted i was prepared to?where are you getting this from? if i gave you that impression then i apologize because that is not how i view things.
now i shared a very personal revelation with you that i normally do not share.please do not dishonor that trust with contempt or disdain.i understand you do not believe and that is your right but at least respect my offer of something valuable to me,even if it is garbage to you.
this is why it is called "faith" and not "evidence".i did not offer evidence,i offered a revelation given to me which is where my faith resides.and all of our experiences are subjective.

2.What good are those answers if they have no basis in reality. Just because there is no definitive consensus doesn’t mean that you can substitute in your own beliefs. Doing that, in and of itself, is irrational. Everything that you’ve said that you believe in has its basis in magical and wishful thinking, not in science, even though you're using scientific terms (incorrectly I might add).
-again.this is why it is called faith and faith in and of itself is irrational.i do understand these concepts and realize their implications.and whats up with the snide remark about my incorrect usage of scientific terms? then teach me correctly..or are you one of those people that will let a dude walk around with his fly open? come on man...uncalled for.

3.If there isn’t a conclusive answer, than why make one up? The only thing that individualized answers to these questions offers to me is evidence of how scientifically illiterate people actually are. Scientifically literate and rational people don’t answer questions that they don’t have objective and research driven answers to and if they do propose an answer when there isn’t something they can be objectively highly certain of, they submit it as conjecture, a mere hypothesis, very little more than an inconclusive guess.
--again i refer to faith.i get it man.you dont have any unless it is scientifically proven factual.
and most people are scientifically illiterate.you ever think instead of calling them retards (you didnt use those words but you may has well have)that maybe you could help them a bit? maybe share some of your understanding? point them in a direction that may answer their questions?
you are kind of being a douche in this last part,i dont think its intentional,but its very...douchey.
i mean..
you ask me a question.one in which i attempt to answer based on a revelation that was given to me over 30 years ago,and THEN turn around and basically say that im making shit up and that i am scientifically illiterate.
of course i am scientifically illiterate.
i am an ordained minister and a fucking poet!what did you expect?
but i own an insatiable curiosity.
i am constantly prodding the edges of my own understanding and attempting to further my knowledge base.
but i hold no illusions that i knew everything,nor do i look down upon those i disagree with.
i view every interaction as an opportunity to learn.

as i stated earlier.
i offered my faith,not certitude.
if the factual realm of science gives you comfort and makes you smile then i say ..good for you!
and might i suggest you share this passion with others?
i do not know what you meant to accomplish with your letter to me.
its tone is far different than our other transactions and some of its content and wording has me perplexed.
you have never been presumptuous with me before nor have you taken an arrogant tilt.
yet i find both of those in this letter.
meh../shrugs..text lacks the nuances of eye to eye conversation.
and being a person who uses words often i am fully aware of their total inadequacies to express ones thoughts/feelings/dreams at times.

just know that science reveals my understanding of creation to be spot on..
every..single..time.
and if you wish to call "god" the "universe"..
feel free.it is just as appropriate.
my path may be far different from yours but i still think your pretty cool.
while the fundamentalist stagnates in his own certitude..
i do not.
i am just me.
be well my friend.
namaste.

ok.
i shall attempt to answer your questions to the best of my ability.due to the length and breadth of your questions i shall tackle them on a singular basis.
welcome to part one:
@IAmTheBlurr
Let me ask you a question. Why do you trust your personal revelation?

I ask this because I used to be very “spiritual” and I’ve even had out-of-body experiences, experiences that I can only call past life regressions. I grew up in a practicing Christian family and I have memories of experience that I can only call “personal revelation”. I’ve come to a lot of reasons why I shouldn’t trust those personal revelations; I want to know if you’ve come to understand how the human brain is very easily tricked into irrational behaviors and beliefs (not just religious)

You say that this has been an ongoing revelation since you were 14. If you had not had this history of personal revelation at all and it came to you suddenly today, would you find it believable? I imagine that you’re beliefs have been challenged many times. Are you certain that the strengthening effect of the challenges aren’t just from the boomerang effect, caused by a need to justify something that you feel committed to?

@enoch
this is a multi-faceted question.
i think the best approach would be to outline my faith in order to give you a decent starting point and will hopefully add context to any further discussions.:

"god" is a only a term i use to represent a creator.
there is no gender bias when i use this term.
now let me define my usage of "creator".
with the stipulation that i believe reality is the illusion and thought is real.
because what is "reality"?
what is "consciousness"?
and how do we measure these things?based on what scale?
we have five senses in which to articulate the "real" world.
and it is our "consciousness" which discerns this reality through first the five senses and then processing through said consciousness.
while over-simplified..we can agree on the basic mechanics of what i say?

now here is where you and i will have divergence.
for i believe (have faith) that we are a composite of mind.body and spirit.
you stop at mind .body.
you may view your ego as an accurate representation of who you are while i believe that your ego is only who you THINK you are based on those who influence your own self-identity but not who you ACTUALLY are.
this is a wholly different discussion but in so many ways extremely pertinent to our discussion.
a topic i will visit in the later parts of our conversation.

now on to my personal revelation.
while i will not share the particulars (for no other reason than it will take up too much space and time) i will share what was shown to me at 14 yrs old.
i was shown that:
god is not separate.
god is a consciousness and not one that we have any capabilities to understand at this point in our evolution and on this physical plane of existence.
god is literally everything.every molecule..every atom or quark.gas-solid-microbe.
god resides outside time/space but also within.
god did NOT create us specifically but we are rather a by-product of his (not saying god is a dude here btw) creation.
as a species god is indifferent if we succeed or fail (let the religious folk have fits over THAT statement).

let me attempt a different approach,not to convince of you of anything but rather to illuminate my position in a clearer light.
1.when this universe came in to existence what was the ONE thing that also came in to existence?(besides the obvious).
time.
and what does this fourth dimension give us?
things become relative.
2.so being relative what do you find in the most basic and simplest of terms?
positive-negative
good-bad
god-devil
a really ancient story but appropriate.
of course humanity anthropamophizes this basic construct but what else does this universal creation put out there?
evidenced over and over again.
the desire to live...life..to create.
the entire universe follows this edict.
religious people will point and say "look at that! there is your evidence!"
i disagree..because that implies intent and god did not intentionally create any of it.
the ONLY intent god put forth was to push forward...to strive..to be.
to a religious person this is blasphemy incarnate because the ideas i am putting forth basically say that god did not intentionally create us as we are..and he didnt..we are a by product of the first intent billions of years ago.

now here is where it gets really cool in my opinion.
jesus stated "i am you..you are me".
correctamundo.
IF you follow my understanding of the universe as i have stated then you must also see where i am going with this.
god is consciousness who created the universe from itself.
we are part of this universe.
so hence WE are a part of god and god is literally a part of us.
think "we were created in his image"
yep..just not in the way religious folk may have ever imagined.

now..lets put the conversation of "consciousness" away for a minute (because that ..in itself is another entirely different..and long..conversation).
and let me ask that you withold disbelief for a moment and consider the possibility of a spirit/soul.
consider that the spirit is the divine spark.the part of us that is connected to this god consciousness.
or..as you would most likely do...dismiss the idea of a spirit.
would you agree that we experience this reality through our senses?
that we love.cry.play and indulge on this physical plane?
and that if my understanding that god is literally everything..would that not correspond to our experiencing this physical reality is actually experiencing creation itself?
and if that makes sense to you would it be too huge a leap to realize that while we experience god subjectively through our experiences that god experiences itself through us?
"i am you..you are me".

pretty cool huh?
the creator resides outside of time/space but experiences its own creation through us and conversely we experience god just by breathing and interacting with creation.
this means that god gets to experience linear existence through us and we through it.

god does not judge because all creation is experiencing itself in a linear fashion.
good and evil are just arbitrary term based on subjective understandings.
god does not discern from either.
so you experiencing love and joy..or the best sex you have ever had in your life.
god experiences also.
just as god will experience the violated and the violator.
both equally.
it is WE who deem acts either good or evil.
because it is WE who have the divine within us.
we make moral distinctions predicated on our own subjective understanding at that moment in time and respond according to those understandings.
god does not distinguish such things.
WE judge ourselves and each other..god does not.

the arrogance and hubris of religion to even postulate that we were somehow this "special creation" to me is just a reaction to just how small and insignificant we are....as a species.
it is the spirit which holds the key to understanding because that is the part of us connected to the divine.so while the flesh will decay,die and rot..the spirit will be consumed back in to the source.
how that will translate i have no idea but i was shown that creation is infinite.
infinite universes and dimension.
life creation in ways that are unimaginable to us.
all of it up/down and sideways.
myriads of lifeforms so strange and alien according to our current understandings.

as a lifeform we are really..at the heart..a complicated amalgamation of co-operative bacteria which strove billions of years ago to be more than the single sum and in doing so became self-aware.
and IN that self awareness came curiosity.
all following that first intent..strive...push forward..be more.
and since the advent of our self-awareness that is exactly what we have been doing,and our understanding is growing exponentially.
everything has a consciousness but we are the most self aware on this planet but consciousness has been evident in other animals (of varying degrees).consciousness can even be attributed to plants.
i propose that the universe has a consciousness.one we cannot comprehend or fathom at this juncture in our evolution.

and NO..i am not speaking of the "good of gaps".
and also a very strong reason why i have no urge to defend my position because that implies that somehow my understanding is somehow more "right" than somebody elses.
just as in saying i am "committed" to one ideology implies that i am somehow a messenger with a strict theocratic way of thinking,or an absolutist way of thinking and both would be inaccurate.every new piece of information changes the paradigm..how can it not?
the only constant i have experienced is how these new pieces of information confirm that very first revelation shown to me.
love creates something more than when it first came into being while negative destroys and gives back nothing.
god is indifferent to both.
and everything is connected.


now.
let me respond to your query "why do you trust your personal revelation"?
i shall answer in bullet point outline:
1.i knew my grandfather had died.though nobody had been called about it yet.
2.i knew..to the day..when my father was going to die and why.
3.i knew my aunt had colon cancer though she showed no signs of having any problems.thank god she believed me at 15 years of age and went to the doctor. consequently lived for another 18 years (died at 84).
4.while i will not post every particular occurance over the span of my life,suffice to say i have learned to trust my inuition because it has been spot on..
every..
single..
time.

now is this due to my brain attempting to find patterns and a certain congruence?
perhaps..but how do i just know some things?
when there is no possible way to even suspect?
my father was the pinnacle of health.
my grandmother was in terrible health and everybody was certain she had only days left.
i knew she would live another year and five months because she was afraid of dying.
i was right on both accounts.

i could go on,but understand i post these events not to convince you of anything other than to explain them is no easy task.
we just dont understand how these things happen but happen they do,
and i have all confidence that one day we will understand.
it just wont be today.
because science..in its most base definition..is obeying the first intent.
to strive..to push.

we are trying to understand creation.
religion does not attempt that.religion only seeks to quantify god into terms that we can understand and accept and in that respect,religion will always fail.
science fails also but recognizes failure and moves forward.
religion stagnates and suppresses.

well,
thats it for this chapter.
am i delusional for having faith in spirit?
possible.being a rational and reasonable human being i have to accept that possibility.
but everything i have experienced has just revealed the exact opposite.
we are more than the sum of our parts.
there is a part of us which is divine and seeks out that divinity in everything we touch/see/hear.
though we may not even be aware of it.
the spiritual person is VERY aware of this though.
the religious person is not.
till next time my friend.
namaste.

>> ^Smugglarn:
Go fuck yourself.
Then die.>> ^Payback:
I've wondered why I've never felt any real compassion for him, then it dawned on me. Before the cancer, he was such an uptight, sanctimonious prick, so in love with his own voice... just seemed kharmically balanced to me. At least he seems to have learned some humility.



Bravo Smugglarn! As eloquent as any of Ebert's critiques! Well said!

Personally, I'm impressed you can actually type so well with your "two thumbs up" your ass.

To anyone else who might not share my derision of the man, and are unable to access their extensive vocabulary with such ease and aplomb as Smugglarn, please take my previous comments as being from someone who absolutely despised Ebert, even back when he had his health. While I wouldn't wish his fate on anyone, I still note he makes a SHIT TON of money as the newpaper critic that started his career. I just have a hard time feeling bad for someone whose benefits far outweigh their challenges.

I have been on the books for a year and a half. I have been around here lurking for almost five years for hundreds of hours.

Precedent such as it may be called respective to significant content is acknowledged by me repeatedly in what I have commented. The overall scope of the precedent of nebulous variance to which you and others here, however long here, amounts to little other than wishful thinking and is not shared by all represented in your poll or not.

While I have and have had respect for much you have said here and elsewhere, I care not for your tone or its inferences that time here has conferred upon you some superior ability or powers of disernation exclusive to time onsite.

Polls here and elsewhere can be and sometimes are useful. As has been noted here and elsewhere as well, they can be and often are little more than circle jerks. Thus, popular and satisfying to those participating but less so to repugnant to those observing.


>> ^blankfist:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chicchorea" title="member since October 15th, 2009" class="profilelink">chicchorea, precedent has been set. It has been for a while. Believe me, this isn't the first time the "dupe" conversation has reared its ugly head on here. You've only been here for over a year, but for some of the other members who've been on here for much longer, they know better.
The general consensus is that if a video shows enough of a variance from the original then it's not a dupe. For instance, if you sifted the dramatic chipmunk but with the audio changed to lounge music, it would NOT be considered a dupe even though the length is identical to the original dramatic chipmunk video. The same goes when sifting a shorter clip of a longer source. If there's enough of a change or if the change adds something different, then it's not a dupe.
Regardless, the poll will be our official 'go to' resource for squashing any dissenting opinions regarding what is and what is not a dupe.

@NetRunner it seems to me that you may be confusing libertarianism with objectivism, or that I might have a more narrow view of libertarianism than is common. I'm thinking of ye olde Liberal, like Adam Smith and such. Already there I guess I make a "pick and choose" already, and cut away the crazier elements.

Charity is not an immoral thing in libertarianism, the thing is that you have to choose to be charitable. By my inaction I can cause a lot of suffering, sure, by not giving all my money to poor people, I "cause" them to stay poor and suffering. There are incentives to helping them, though, personally I can feel better about myself (that's why most people donate to anything anyway) for instance. The "free" part just means that we have a choice and are not forced.

If the government or someone else mandates that I give a poor guy some of my money, then it could be considered immoral, theft etc. Because I no longer have the choice, I am forced.

So I come back to, suffering is an unintended consequence of libertarianism - there is an inherent inequality, yes, some people win some people lose, but winners are perfectly allowed to be charitable all they like. Because we are free, we are also free to not share, that's the consequence.

On your example: It makes perfect sense if people are not products. I wouldn't say that people are products, are you saying that? Because the contradiction is only there when people can be bought and sold. Even when children are not emancipated yet (over 18 or however you get considered an adult) the parents are only your guardians, not your owners.

i facepalmed when a relatively "smart" movie like inception used the 10% brain myth, and it's even more insulting in a movie about psychopharamaceuticals... but this is entertainment, i guess. i dunno, the movie looks shit to me from the trailer, but then i suppose i have this whole psych bias thing where i have difficulty suspending disbelief when it comes to matters of the brain now.

you are aware that psychopharmaceuticals are already a reality, yes? just perhaps not in the domain of this movie. boston legal had an episode that covered a real drug that dampens emotional/traumatic memories -- it's an ongoing controversy.

re: ADHD... i definitely do not share your viewpoint on its cause, but i certainly think the disorder has been needlessly politicised and therefore is a conceptual mess.

You are so full of shit on this one @MarineGunrock

No offense intended but you are making statements based on a situation you know nothing about to seemingly expel how you feel about a certain situation(s).

You might think you're king shit with his chest out waiting for that moment to run a perp down, but a lot of us do not share that mindset and instead we take out our cameras and laugh.

and what about the legal ramifications.... nooo sir

Well I can see you started without me again. Well that's it, friendo; I'm not sharing my Thunderbird with you anymore.
In reply to this comment by Gallowflak:
DOn't have tp rove anything to you! BlAGGARD

(21. It helps me compose! Honest!)

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
You mean you need an excuse? You must be young.
In reply to this comment by Gallowflak:
Yaaaaay! I thought I wouldn't have an excuse to indulge my alcoholism today.

well why wait for a starting signle if its a FFA? tradition.

i would posit not sharing would make you known as someone who doesnt honor the tradition.

if you didnt honor the tradition, why do it at all? a measly fish for yourself?

naw, i think you're not thinkin! in fact, here's a good reason:

"Antogo – embedded in mystery and magic – symbolises peace and cohesion among Dogon villages, absence of conflict and the sharing of the gifts coming from a common good."

also, thousands? from link "hundreds of Dogon come from all parts of the country to Bamba’s lake. "

In reply to this comment by pmkierst:
Clearly my expectations on what constitutes realistic on the part of a *flight* sim (i.e. FLIGHT) was not shared with the poster of the video.

LOL, well all I can do is offer this.

http://videosift.com/video/DCS-A-10C-Warthog-Game-Trailer

Clearly my expectations on what constitutes realistic on the part of a *flight* sim (i.e. FLIGHT) was not shared with the poster of the video.

The donkeys whose elections are on the line do not share maddow's rosy outlook. How can any of the obama regime be trusted when a @#! tax cheat still runs the Treasury?