You do realize that it's simply a movie filled with comic book heroes, right?

This isn't some Upton Sinclair style expose of an industry. It's not an allegory of the politcal-corporate complex.

It's a friggin' super-hero comic book movie meant to entertain people in an air-conditioned theater when it's hot outside.

Perspective a bit.

>> ^renatojj:

Despite those obvious benefits, I guess bashing on states rights is quite popular these days.

Funny how the only time I ever hear anyone talk about states rights are when they want to do something retarded. So bash away, AFAIC.

>> ^renatojj:

I know it feels unfathomable to you right now that your political views might be wrong, or that you might be the one with a "backward world view", but realizing that isn't moral relativism, it's admitting that you're human, fallible. Politics is a complex subject, I'm not saying there are no right answers, just that you should be wary of those who claim to have them.


There's a difference between political differences (socialism v capitalism, authoritarian v liberal) and fundamental human rights. You want to argue the relative merits of isolationism vs interventionism? Go nuts. But I have a serious problem with people equivocating on subjects like this as if it's an academic topic for debate.

And btw, you can leave the condescending "I know you don't get it now" tone out of it. Neither of us know anything about the life experience of the other. For the record, my politcal stances have changed many times, from anarcho-capitalism to socialism to somewhere in between, but once again, this is not about politics.

Politcal THEATRICS!

I'm jumping in.

I have had a huge distaste for all of this, on both sides.. but more so on the protestor's side.

Even though I myself would never ban dancing at the memorial (I don't agree there should be a law in place there concerning it), it doesn't change the fact that I can see *why* such a law was made. And that why makes at least *some* sense. That doesn't mean I agree with it, I can simply see why someone would want that area to be free of as much disturbance as possible. If dancing is allowed, that means loud noisy dancing would technically be allowed.. no, there's no video of that happening.. but still.

So the law makes at least a little bit of sense; why then must the cops be taunted into arresting people over it? Why do that for such a stupid little law? By doing that they've turned this whole thing into something it isn't. There's no real victory here. This law wasn't oppressing anything but a possible cardio work out at most.

Should these people go to librarys now and start making noise to overthrow the horrible library sized police-states the "Please keep your voice down." draconian librarians enforce? I mean, by the logic of this protest they should, shouldn't they?

I believe a law should be protested if it doesn't make sense, and / or it harms innocents (truely oppresses). This law they're "fighting" is neither. And I think the real purpose of this rally is to get that one guy, who makes sure to end up in every video I've seen involving this, gain more following. I'm pretty sure he has his own agenda (for better or worse) here, and that's what I really don't like.

What about the college block party that was broken up by riot police that just happened recently? That's something Id respect fighting against, among so many other things. This was an easy fight, an easy win and now he's showing up on news channels claiming victory.. I think there was more driving the person(s) who put this together then simple expression of freedom. I'm not denying I could be wrong, I just heavily suspect otherwise.

Yes, a lot of us are tired of all the crap we've been seeing lately.. and this to some feels like a first step victory against all that.. and thus some are rallying behind this. I really see all of this as a play (politcal move) by the organizers. Sorry.

That's what *I* think.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
In the US, there's been a two party system since the beginning, right? Started as Federalist v. Nonfederalist.

Good point. Why do you think there were only two factions all the way back then, instead of 5 or 6?
Me, I think it's just that the US had a pretty tight-knit group of people who created the Federal government, and they split along a 1-dimensional ideological divide at an early date. So we started with two large factions, and the dynamic in the video kept 3rd parties from rising to dominance, save when we had a collapse in one of the major factions.


The great thing about history is it doesn't care what you think. It only cares about the facts. Even the first president warned against the politcal parties.

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally."

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

— George Washington, farewell address, September 19, 1796

Skip to 7:20 for non-politcal parts.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by mintbbb.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Worst-or-Best-Politcal-Interview-Ever

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Worst-or-Best-Politcal-Interview-Ever

>> ^MaxWilder:

LarsaruS, you are ignoring context. This was a geometry lesson, not a socio-politcal discussion. It was not intended to raise a topic for thoughtful debate. When you put together a word problem for a math lesson, you are implying that the content of the problem is something you might have to consider in real life, and in a fairly trivial manner. It is not appropriate to use immoral acts as the content of school lessons, no matter what the specific act may be. For instance, you would not want a teacher who used an example of how much children eat daily, and how much less they would need if you drowned some of them. You would not want to use the example of how many slaves you would need to buy to get a certain amount of acreage harvested. GeeSussFreeK's example above is funny because of how totally inappropriate it would be in school.
It doesn't matter whether it is a hypothetical. The context implies approval of the activities specified.


Ok, I have a couple of issues with your post.

1: "When you put together a word problem for a math lesson, you are implying that the content of the problem is something you might have to consider in real life, and in a fairly trivial manner".
1.1: No, that does not have to be the case. I never considered word problems in any lesson as something I might have to do in real life (anecdotal evidence but still). There is a skill called critical thinking, you use it to see what the lesson is about, here angles and probably Pythagoras, and learn that not just what the problem's solution is. That way you can apply what you have learnt on many things as you get the principle for how to solve all similar problems.


2: "It is not appropriate to use immoral acts as the content of school lessons, no matter what the specific act may be"
2.1: Umm, what? Not being able to use immoral acts as content of school lessons at all? Seriously? And who decides what these immoral acts are? (Hint: lobby groups) For some being homosexual is an immoral act as it is a choice/lifestyle, ergo no teachers are allowed to talk about HBTQ rights. Equality is therefore gone in school education. For some talking about evolution is immoral so good bye science. The list goes on. If you have an "Immoral list" you can always add more things to it as you see fit until only the things that the people in power wants to be taught can be taught and in a couple of generations all other knowledge will have vanished as the people who learnt it die off.

Also school is to prepare children for adult life. Adult life is filled with "immoral" actions and people. Sending kids out into the real world with a distorted world view is the most immoral act I could ever think of as they will be completely unprepared for real life and hit a lot of pitfalls that otherwise could have been avoided. "Everybody in the world is super nice and you are super special too!" so go with the man who has a rabbit in his cellar that he wants you to see...

2.2: What about classes about law or history? Lessons where criminals, or criminal acts, are discussed would have to go. For instance, lessons about the eradication of the Native Americans would have to go, No Nürnberg trials, no Pearl Harbour or nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki... the list of things which can be considered immoral or that contains immoral acts is endless. We are a violent species.


3: "For instance, you would not want a teacher who used an example of how much children eat daily, and how much less they would need if you drowned some of them. You would not want to use the example of how many slaves you would need to buy to get a certain amount of acreage harvested."
3.1: Kids and food problem: See this.
Also it is simple arithmetic. Example: "You have X food and Y people. Every person Needs Z food per day and you can add F food per day that can be harvested from your farms. How many people can you have without them starving?" What is the problem with a problem like this? Basic civilization survival is based on this formula. Natural resources - consumption/person = Sustainability/Starvation

3.2: Slave problem: Obsolete as slaves are inefficient compared to modern automated machines. Who would use slave labour when you could use a robot that never fucks up (unless you use Windows ofc.), never needs to sleep, never demands pay and never complains? Technological progress FTE (For The Emancipation )


4: "The context implies approval of the activities specified"
4.1: What context and why would it imply approval? That it was a lesson in a school? So if I bring up the attack on WTC in a lesson and how it was executed it means that I approve of the actions? (I guess that Nicolas Cage and a lot of other people who were in the movies about the attacks all support it then?) If I let my students calculate the forces that were subjected on the buildings from the planes mass M and its speed V + the force of the fuel exploding or the McVeigh bombing and the force that X amount of explosives generate I approve what they did? I abhor all use of violence but if I use these examples I approve of them? That makes no sense to me.

One of the best things you can do as a teacher is to ground your lessons in reality and real life events as that increases the motivation and curiosity of the students IMHO.


5: "This was a geometry lesson, not a socio-politcal discussion. It was not intended to raise a topic for thoughtful debate."
5.1: As a teacher, no matter what your subject is, you have to be able to lead discussions on tough subjects as students can come in from recess and something horrible has happened and they need to process it and be "debriefed", think every classroom in the US the hours after 9/11 or after Columbine. If a student is assaulted/gets hit by a car/whatever you have to be able to have a discussion about it.

5.2: If a meaningful debate emerges from any lesson that interests your students you run with it. Simple as that. Learning and developing a lust for learning is the main goal of any teacher worthy of that title in my book.

Wow, that was a serious wall of text. Congrats on getting through it!

*edit for getting the + to show... forgot to put in extra blank spaces...

LarsaruS, you are ignoring context. This was a geometry lesson, not a socio-politcal discussion. It was not intended to raise a topic for thoughtful debate. When you put together a word problem for a math lesson, you are implying that the content of the problem is something you might have to consider in real life, and in a fairly trivial manner. It is not appropriate to use immoral acts as the content of school lessons, no matter what the specific act may be. For instance, you would not want a teacher who used an example of how much children eat daily, and how much less they would need if you drowned some of them. You would not want to use the example of how many slaves you would need to buy to get a certain amount of acreage harvested. GeeSussFreeK's example above is funny because of how totally inappropriate it would be in school.

It doesn't matter whether it is a hypothetical. The context implies approval of the activities specified.

Unfortunately, the socialists here have declared God as non-existant. So, any expression of belief is treated with ridicule and worse. And, "everything" is only open to debate if you agree with the socialist doctrine. Otherwise, again, you are ridiculed and marked as racist/politcally incorrect/wacko/tea-bagger/birther...the list goes on. Those witha third opinion get no respect/attention at all, as the last "election" clearly demonstrated.


*cough*
Religion was never supposed to be part of the government. Those "socialists" want to "get back to the basics" of the constitution. It's better for everyone if religion is not involved, religious or not. Secular government gives people the ability to worship or not worship as they please.

>> ^osama1234:
This is what i hate about the USA media and politics, and they're doing this on this BBC show as well. EVERYTHING, i mean EVERYTHING becomes into a two way debate, everything is open to debate. I mean they could just as well have people up there arguing that 2+2 is 4 vs someone who says it's 5. I hate the state of the USA where everybody gets a voice, even if they're making retarded claims. And there's no doubt, someone (who is wrong) will be able to deny something, while make a random allegation and leave the viewer thinking this topic is open to debate.
This reminds me of Ann Coulter's "Canada sent troop to vietnam" type thing, where the canadian reporter said, " no we didn't sent throops". She then replied, "No, I'm sure, they did". I mean, what do you do when truth can be denied point blank.
I hate this, I wish the USA went back to its basics, one nation under god. A fear of god when you talk, not making random shit up just so you get your policy. I HATE how truth has become a casualty.


Unfortunately, the socialists here have declared God as non-existant. So, any expression of belief is treated with ridicule and worse. And, "everything" is only open to debate if you agree with the socialist doctrine. Otherwise, again, you are ridiculed and marked as racist/politcally incorrect/wacko/tea-bagger/birther...the list goes on. Those witha third opinion get no respect/attention at all, as the last "election" clearly demonstrated.

BTW, did canada send troops to vietnam? Where was the casualty, truth or credibility?

Faith is believing something with no evidence This is a totally non constructive way of thinking and is endorsed in many religions.

Sam harises central point in this video is saying how many people think religion is ok or that its fine/ should be something that needs to be respected. When infact there is no reason to Respect religoin at all.

If religion didn't exists would people be able to use it as a tool to get people to blow them selfs up for politcal means?

Also many religions are themselves evil in there writing , Islam, Christianity so aside from using them as a tool they are intrinsicly eval to start with.

The would would be a far better place with out religion. and definitely without religion such as Christianity and Islam.

to believe Christianity and Islam to be true is incredibly delusanal and dangerous , when you alow yourself to believe things with no evidence you open the dore to allow yourself to do grate evil.