Interviewer is an idiot.

Reason.tv is republican propaganda

>> ^truth-is-the-nemesis:

I could easily spin their point the opposite way & state that
'Although you believe that an organism coming out of another individuals body is the same exact premise as what that person chooses to ingest, why then should these businesses providing abortions be restricted in the marketplace of consumer demand by governments prohibiting these services while also pertaining to be for less governmental restriction & free-market capitalism?'.
Forget soda, Reason.tv will ROT your brain.






By "organism", I assume you mean, "human"...both the law and pretty much all persons are pretty settled on this point that once it is birthed it is a human


This video isn't about restriction abortion either, it is about using the same logic in all part of our lives. The hardest part of the abortion debate is that all western talk of rights is about how states and people manage their contractual parts. Fetuses and babies are completely unable to participate in this debate...we are speaking for them. That makes these problems intractably hard to deal with. To put it another way, the birthing process is like no other process we deal with in life; the "person"/baby/fetusthingy isn't a one, and the mother is a one that brings forth another one. Birthing is the processes of making more others using a one. Ones coming out of ones, really hard to deal with with our mental tools, IMO. If the abortion issue is easy for someone, they are thinking inside a very small paradigm. Perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps it is super easy and I am making it more complex. What does seem clear is that people like to think they are right and not really exert much effort in thinking about it from the other perspective. Perhaps that is why I can look at both the video above and the daily show video and enjoy them. Sometimes, I feel like the only free man in the world.

I could easily spin their point the opposite way & state that

'Although you believe that an organism coming out of another individuals body is the same exact premise as what that person chooses to ingest, why then should these businesses providing abortions be restricted in the marketplace of consumer demand by governments prohibiting these services while also pertaining to be for less governmental restriction & free-market capitalism?'.

Forget soda, Reason.tv will ROT your brain.

>> ^kir_mokum:

this is pretty dishonest "journalism". interesting how obscenely reason TV will ignore major details to make an obtuse ideological point.


Which ones?

this is pretty dishonest "journalism". interesting how obscenely reason TV will ignore major details to make an obtuse ideological point.

>> ^Jinx:

Ahh. poor old plane still yearns for the sky : (


God Humans can connect with ANYTHING. You damn people are the reason TV sucks and is only full of reality bullshit!

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@Yogi @BoneyD I have been to the one here in Austin, pretty accurate. There are lots of smart people dithered in the video as well as not so smart, just like you will find in real life. Might want to watch it all the way through, might change your opinion of the video.

Fuck off.

Why so hateful?


I'm a bastard?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@Yogi @BoneyD I have been to the one here in Austin, pretty accurate. There are lots of smart people dithered in the video as well as not so smart, just like you will find in real life. Might want to watch it all the way through, might change your opinion of the video.

Fuck off.


Why so hateful?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@Yogi @BoneyD I have been to the one here in Austin, pretty accurate. There are lots of smart people dithered in the video as well as not so smart, just like you will find in real life. Might want to watch it all the way through, might change your opinion of the video.


Fuck off.

Reason.tv is a subsidiary of the Reason Foundation. I think there may be your answer, Yogi.

Lol! Sorry friend, staying off the sift more and more these days so only have time for a quickie or two.

I just want to point out to @dystopianfuturetoday, before I get to my point, that the common defense of those defending a position, "words mean different things to different people;" is, IMO, a weak argument. Those attacking tend to use words definitively, ironically (Conservatives say Obama "hates" America, some say he "loves" America... And both are probably right in a fashion.)

I say that if a word is so broad as to be utterly, entirely, completely useless, then why even have those words? The sun is "hot", oh yeah? To who, or what? And what are the comparisons? Is the sun really hot or is that subjective?

While technically it is correct to say the sun may not be hot, it is a silly argument to make and really makes the word "hot" so subjective that it's pointless to note anything hot. And certainties? OMG, there can never be any certainties with this line of open-ended wording (Except, oddly enough, the certainty that itself is the only certainty...)

I am not the definitive judicator of words and their meaning---but I am a damn good judge. You can be one too. Just take a word and, without the rhetoric or emotions added, think on it.

Sarcasm >>>>> (Freedom must be good. It is choice. But, as noted by a great philosopher, in a world of a million choices, you tend to make less choices because the choices enslave you to an extent...so it's not about choice, that is the rhetorical, American-ized version of freedom...) Urm, how about Sarcasm>>>> (Freedom is great, good and promotes prosperity.) How so? That is subjective as hell and cannot be quantified in any way shape or form.... Or >>>>> (Freedom is found in a democracy...) When a million people have a say, your say is very unimportant...

Just weed through the words and find their core if you can (Some don't have one.) And of course, the words change with society too, so the answer never stays stagnant forever.

Otherwise, if we cannot say this is correct, then I will just start typing anything about anyone and say, Sarcasm>>>>>>>"Hey, words mean different things to different people. dystopianfuturetoday is like Hitler means something completely different to me than you--it is not an insult at all but a compliment!"

>> ^NetRunner:

@Lawdeedaw I want a response too!
What's your answer to a hypothetical liberal, who in all seriousness makes this argument about freeberty vs. real, authentic liberal liberty? (You know liberal is actually the adjective form of liberty, don't you?)
If, as you say, "there is an actual conceptual meaning to ideas such as liberty and freedom", then who's the final arbiter of what that conceptual meaning is?
Is it me? You? Wikipedia? Is it The Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Or is it source like Conservapedia, Mises.org, and Reason.tv who take one particular view and deny the validity of any other way of thinking? (You know libertarian actually means "similar to liberty, but not the genuine article", right?)
Whose definition is authoritative? The people who include all points of view, and not try to declare winners and losers, or the people who say they're right, and everyone else is wrong simply because they say so?
WARNING for the sarcasm-impaired: Parentheticals are purely meant as sarcasm.

@Lawdeedaw I want a response too!

What's your answer to a hypothetical liberal, who in all seriousness makes this argument about freeberty vs. real, authentic liberal liberty? (You know liberal is actually the adjective form of liberty, don't you?)

If, as you say, "there is an actual conceptual meaning to ideas such as liberty and freedom", then who's the final arbiter of what that conceptual meaning is?

Is it me? You? Wikipedia? Is it The Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Or is it source like Conservapedia, Mises.org, and Reason.tv who take one particular view and deny the validity of any other way of thinking? (You know libertarian actually means "similar to liberty, but not the genuine article", right?)

Whose definition is authoritative? The people who include all points of view, and not try to declare winners and losers, or the people who say they're right, and everyone else is wrong simply because they say so?

WARNING for the sarcasm-impaired: Parentheticals are purely meant as sarcasm.

THIS is something Reason.tv can do that's fucking good. They should actually DEFEND people who are being fucked by the government...when they go after teachers and the best of our country it just makes me want to shit in their mouths.

I have to admit: That reason.tv is still having this up, with this reporter asking idiotic questions and getting schooled hard by all these educators, speaks for a potential ability to know when they are wrong. (Yes it was unwise to confirm the demand for a billion dollars per child, but the question was so mindbendingly stupid i'd probably have answered the same just to avoid a follow-up question by this ideologue.)

But I fear reason.tv has this still up because they think they are right for asking these idiotic questions.

Koch funds many right wing think tanks in addition to the Reason Foundation. It's not a secret. You can find this information on a number of websites. I just picked sourcewatch because it was the first link in my search return. If you have some evidence to suggest that this is incorrect, I'd be more than happy to hear you out. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
ReasonTV isn't a news outlet, it's a corporate conservative front group. It's subscription and ad revenue are miniscule, sustaining itself almost entirely by donations from corporate benefactors - most notably war profiteer and Tea Party funder, David Koch.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation>> ^Enzoblue:
Top YT comment: Dear "reason.tv" - Stop hiring reporters based on whether you'd fuck them, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform a coherent interview.


Is sourcewatch.org a fair source? I think so with the news stories that pop up on their homepage. Top stories like "Milton Friedman's Little Shop of Horrors" and "The Koch Connection" I could almost wonder if you could be webmaster.
And let's compare the sourcewatch "wikipages" of Center for American Progress (your Democratic org) vs. Reason Foundation. Read the top summary first: CAP and Reason.
CAP's summary hits all the beats. It's rich with info, points out the things that kind of organization would like as publicity, and even going so far as to pimp their email subscription. Wow. Reason's summary is written like a rap sheet. They're a "self described" think tank instead of "Washington, DC-based" think tank like CAP. They point out some affiliation with a donor like Koch - incrimination by association. And then it finishes by showing their reported income losses for some reason. No mention anywhere of CAP's funding.
No, total credible source you got there. Looks legit. Let's go with your link.