It was nice that she pointed out some good things about games but really only hand eye coordination ( which im sure u can get from just about annything) and education, what about social interactions , team work , management skills , art, music . granted there are a grate deal of games that simply revolve around shooting things but these games are so stupid and dont represent the majorty of games produced evan more so now nintendo is thrusting cheep casual crap up our asses.

she relay should have been more specific of the exact type of games she was talking about

>> ^EDD:

Religion provides social connection for communities that might not connect with each other otherwise. Even individually, people get social interaction from religious activities. For recovering alcoholics, I've heard that nothing compares to the 12-step system which involves theistic belief. Regarding the "babysitter" function of religion, religion might help people avoid clinical depression following a traumatic incident such as the death of a loved one.

I'm not saying nothing could replace these things, but atheism and science in their present form don't offer replacements.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Bystander Effect, Apathy, social, Interaction' to 'Bystander Effect, Apathy, social, Interaction, psychology' - edited by kronosposeidon

>> ^smooman:
>> ^illeto:
>> ^smooman:
fuck cats

ohh, the internet is not going to like you.

It's really no concern of mine what kind of ill disposition "imaginary" internet peoples (most of whom I share no real meaningful social interaction with and, more likely, of whom I'll never meet in my lifetime) may have towards me because I have a differing preference in domestic pets.
But thanks for giving me a heads up =)
And boo to whomever downvoted my comment, damn cat lover!


You can see who downvoted comments by mousing over the down and up arrows.

>> ^illeto:
>> ^smooman:
fuck cats

ohh, the internet is not going to like you.


It's really no concern of mine what kind of ill disposition "imaginary" internet peoples (most of whom I share no real meaningful social interaction with and, more likely, of whom I'll never meet in my lifetime) may have towards me because I have a differing preference in domestic pets.

But thanks for giving me a heads up =)

And boo to whomever downvoted my comment, damn cat lover!

(I don't know if it has been suggested before or not) Since you're open to ideas, here is one that worked really well at a site I used to help moderate and that also had huge bills to take care of.

Have you ever thought about giving users the ability to give charter memberships to anyone as a gift? Like a small link on each profile. For example: 'Give mauz15 a charter membership' It can easily fit below each user's avatar. And basically when you click the link it will redirect you to a page where you can pick which plan, or what number of powerpoints you want to give as a gift. After that it will redirect you to paypal. At the end of the transaction, a confirmation message is sent to the user, and another message is sent to the profile of the user who received the gift.

This is a video site/ community, which means there are many social connections going around, and I am sure that many consider each other friends, etc. This makes it very likely that a user will want to give a charter membership, or even a powerpoint to another user just because they are friends, or because that user reached diamond level, or maybe it is their birthday or their first year on VS, etc, etc. I don't know how big the userbase here really is but from the amount of social interaction I have noticed, I think it could work and it does not hurt to try it out.

Also, make the Support link more attention grabbing. Separated from other links; and at the very top. The spot where the powerpoints are displayed is a good example.

That is all.

Oh and pretty awesome how the level of donations has progressed so far.

>> ^bluecliff:
you cant debunk a statement of moral proposition for Christs sake. I mean wtf, are you insane?
you can't produce evidence for ethical conduct, if you could do that ethics would be science and it isn't.


That is true. However there is much to be gleaned from the social interactions that benefit the propagation of a population over long periods of time with application of evolutionary theory as explored in this video.

"You can't think of the future, people are starving" rears its ugly head again.
It's just life, you can always quit by committing suicide.

Fact is we are invested in this community and there is no reason to treat this any differently than any other social interaction.

>> ^Farhad2000:
You guys are unbelievable.
Its the internet. These are just avatars. Just videos. Why do you get so worked up about it. You know you could close down the browser, get up, and walk away.
This is unnecessary and would only add to the increasing feature bloat of this site.

>> ^thepinky:
^You just as good as said that I'll stop being a troll as soon as I "come around" and share your opinions. You think that I need to start seeing things from other points of view, and then I will no longer be a troll?

Seeing an issue from someone else's point of view does not imply adopting their conclusions and opinions as your own. It only implies "walking a mile in a another man's shoes" -- stepping outside of one's own perspective to adopt another's, however briefly and imperfectly. Obviously, this is always incomplete and filtered through one's own experience. But the ability to empathize with others, in the most general sense, is arguably the most important of all social skills. It's what allows (semi-)coherent social interactions in the first place.
(Shameless brain channel plug - search for mirror neurons to learn about the cellular basis for this ability.)

Being religious and conservative does not automatically make me less open-minded than you, and it doesn't make me a troll.

While neither of those qualities makes you a troll, I think it is fair to say that religious people are generally less open minded than non-believers. (Perhaps that should be restricted to agnostics - I suppose many strong atheists are just as close minded as those on the opposite side of the spectrum.) Absolute belief (or disbelief) in the existence of God entails certain cognitive consequences. For instance, religious people often have a hard time comprehending how an atheist could be a moral being, because for a believer, all morality stems from God. So, without Him, how can morality exist? Thus, anyone that rejects His existence also rejects morality. Every atheist and agnostic reading this will instantly recognize the absurdity of such a proposition, but for nearly every religious person I've every known, it's an accepted matter of fact. Essentially, absolute belief in anything causes the believer to be cognitively incapable of adopting certain points of view, because the original belief makes some points of view incomprehensible.

I have no doubt that you are a good and well-intentioned person, pinky. You are at that age of possibly greatest optimism and idealism. It's a wonderful place. Enjoy it. But don't allow it's comfort to prevent you from growing. It's kind of like the apple in the garden - knowledge is a double-edged sword. You'll lose some of that optimism, but you gain an understanding of your fellow humans. Unlike the original sin, though, it is generally worth it to go ahead and take a bite.

MaxWilder,

Here is my personal definition and derivation of human rights:

The "right to life" is derived from the law of identity: X is X. In other words, a living being is a living being. Living beings exist only as long as they remain alive, or have life. As such, living beings must constantly sustain their own life through self-generated action.

A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning an individual's freedom of action in a social context. Social interaction exists only through living beings. As such, social interaction is possible if and only if living beings have the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action. This right, the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action, exists only for individuals in a social context--and is what I term "the right to life."

Thus, "the right to life" is the most fundamental right of an individual. In a social context, freedom of action is violated only by means of physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. So, for every individual, "the right to life" specifies the freedom to think and act, to pursue one's own ends through voluntary, uncoerced action. To pursue the property which enables one to sustain their life, and the happiness which makes life worthwhile. Consequently, an individual's "right to life" imposes no restrictions or obligations on the actions of other individuals, only to abstain from violating their "right to life."

to paraphrase, it is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". From the above, many corollaries directly follow: such as the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom from slavery, etc.

>> ^imstellar28:
1. If you look at the definition of "social" how could social interaction be possible if both parties aren't alive?

As I wrote, that discussion is way beyond the scope of this post. It depends on what you mean by "social interaction". A chess match between Deep Blue and Kasparov comes to mind as a possible counter-example. I'll accept your asseration, though, but want to point out that you are (unnecessarily?) including all living things, not just humans. And I think it confounds other assertions, like the right to property and self-determination. If the point here is to discuss human interaction, then you really don't need to mention "living things" and a definition of social interaction.


2. I am talking in a social context, as I stated several times. Rights mean nothing outside of a social context.

That depends on who you're talking to. I personally don't believe in absolute morality, but some people do. And in their world view, rights do exist outside of human definition.


I am not talking about what is physically possible, I am talking about what is morally possible. You cannot morally (i.e. without violating another's rights) consume food that you do not own.

That assumes ownership of everything. If I walk in a forest, and eat some berries that belong to no one, whose rights have violated?

Also, the very notion of ownership implies the right to own property, which you state is a corollary of the right to life. It cannot simultaneously be a necessary condition and a consequence of the right to life. Which is it?

And this also gets back to the problem of talking about generic social interactions between living things. Clearly a chimpanzee is a member of a social group and has social interactions with others in its own group and members of other groups. But chimpanzees require no concept of ownership to survive, i.e., to exercise their right to life.


3. Self-determination, as defined in wikipedia, is the "as free choice of one’s own acts without external compulsion" which is essentially the same thing as the right to life. Thus, it cannot be a condition for the right to life as they are one in the same. If you think a person forced into slavery has the right to life, you have misunderstood my post.

Apparently so. But you define the right to life in the third paragraph of your post:

This right, the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action, exists only for individuals in a social context--and is what I term "the right to life."

It mentions nothing about self-determination, but then you later state,

for every individual, "the right to life" specifies the freedom to think and act, to pursue one's own ends through voluntary, uncoerced action.

So, you've noted that self-determination is a necessary condition for the right to life (as opposed to part of its definition) without giving any reason. Anyone (or thing) can be coerced into all sorts of actions by others in its social group without impairing its ability to sustain its life.


4. Imagine 5 people are stranded in the desert and steve is the only one who brought water. He has one gallon. Yes, people are compelled to trade with him-but how does that make it involuntary? Steve isn't using physical force, compulsion, or coercion to make them trade with him. You are confusing what compelling means.

He's not using coercion? Are you serious? Trade me your big sun hat for some water, or you're going to die! That's not coercion?? The threat of dying is usually pretty compelling for me. That steve will not be the direct agent of my death is irrelevant - I'm still going to die if I don't give him my hat for some water.

^jonny,

I feel as though my post is extremely explicit and clear, as I was very methodical about going from one step to the next. With all respect, I am unsure as to how you are drawing the conclusions you do.

1. If you look at the definition of "social" how could social interaction be possible if both parties aren't alive?
2. I am talking in a social context, as I stated several times. Rights mean nothing outside of a social context. I am not talking about what is physically possible, I am talking about what is morally possible. You cannot morally (i.e. without violating another's rights) consume food that you do not own.
3. Self-determination, as defined in wikipedia, is the "as free choice of one’s own acts without external compulsion" which is essentially the same thing as the right to life. Thus, it cannot be a condition for the right to life as they are one in the same. If you think a person forced into slavery has the right to life, you have misunderstood my post.
4. Imagine 5 people are stranded in the desert and steve is the only one who brought water. He has one gallon. Yes, people are compelled to trade with him-but how does that make it involuntary? Steve isn't using physical force, compulsion, or coercion to make them trade with him. You are confusing what compelling means.

Social interaction exists only through living beings.

That's not strictly true. A debate on the merits of that statement, though, would probably be way beyond the context of this post.


To pursue the property which enables one to sustain their life
...
The freedom of action to consume, utilize, or dispense of objects requires ownership.

Ownership and a concept of property is not a necessary condition of sustaining life. That is self-evident. Every organism on the planet is capable of sustaining its life without claiming a right to property. Even among highly social species, there is no need for ownership. They eat, drink, and breathe as they need.


the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action, exists only for individuals in a social context--and is what I term "the right to life."
...
"the right to life" specifies the freedom to think and act, to pursue one's own ends through voluntary, uncoerced action.

Unless I misunderstand, you are claiming that self-determination is a necessary condition for "right to life", since it is not part of your definition. But you give no reason why it is necessary. And I think that is the point of dghandi's hypothetical slave situation. Allen meets all of the criteria for his "right to life", i.e., self-generated self-sustaining action. Being a slave, though, he obviously does not possess self-determination.


Individuals are motivated to engage in voluntary trade and cooperation because each believes they gain the ability to better sustain their life in comparison to the alternative. This simple fact assures that trade will occur if and only if all parties perceive a benefit from the terms of exchange.

That is simply not true. If Steve has successfully claimed ownership of the only source of fresh water, then everyone else is compelled to trade with Steve.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^imstellar28:
It should be noted that "the right to life" as I define it, is compatible with helping others, as people who are free to sustain their own life, are also free to choose to sustain the lives of others. However, if you define it as the socialists, you necessarily have to sustain the lives of others not out of choice, but of obligation, which I find to be considerably less noble.

Maybe.
One may be "obliged" to stop at a four-way intersection, or one can be noble and just blow right through, since it undermines his fundamental "right to life."
It would seem to me that adhering to a set of rules that either leads to, or encourages, a stronger, safer society would be far and away more noble than to belly-ache about being "obliged" to follow them.
Tell me...if one of the people in your example scenario has nothing to trade, does he lose his "right to life"?
(good post, by the way)


In a scenario where an individual has nothing (tangible) to trade, he would still possess the right to life so long as he exists in a social context. Holding the right to life, and thus the right to property, he has the freedom to claim ownership over items not in yet under the ownership of other individuals, and to utilize those items to sustain his life. If no such items are readily available, he is free to exchange his services (labor) or information (ideas) directly for food and water, or intermediate forms such as currency. The latter is the route most individuals take to sustain their lives.

As far as living beings that do not exist in a social context: consider a shipwrecked sailor who lands on a deserted island. He does not necessarily have the right to life because no social interaction is possible, but at the same time he does not need any rights because there are no other individuals present to violate his freedom of action.

^There is nothing that forbids a living being from becoming property, if that is the best way for them to sustain their life, they are free to chose this route. What I am saying is that they must make the conscious choice to do so. You start off with the assumption that Allen is property but you do nothing to establish or prove why this is valid.

It might be easier if you just paste the list from 1-10 and say next to each whether you think each step is valid, and if not explain why or offer a way to fix it?
1. a living being is a living being
2. a living being is alive only as long as it sustains its life
3. living beings sustain life through self-generated action
4. social interaction only exists through living beings
5. social interaction only exists if living beings sustain themselves
6. a "right" defines and sanctions a living beings freedom of action in social interaction
7. living beings, in a social context, have the right to sustain themselves
8. rights can, ultimately, only be violated with physical force, compulsion, or coercion
9. living beings, in a social context, have the right to sustain themselves through self-generated action, free of physical force, compulsion, or coercion.
10. #9 is the right to life.