>> ^probie:

Grew up watching Jim Varney. Dr. Otto and the Riddle of the Gloom Beam anyone? One of my favorite spots of his was an anti-smoking PSA he did, where he chided Vern for smoking. "I care about ya buddy! But if you keep going like this, the groundhogs will be deliverin' yer mail, know what I mean?"
If they ever do a biopic, I nominate Mike Rowe.


Mike Rowe is like Ernest's evil twin Nash. All that workin out in prison. It'd be interesting to see him behave with such... timidity? Ernest isn't what I'd call a man's man. His strength lies in his pure ignorance and ingenuity, such that he holds to antiquated notions of chivalry and, not realizing the true nature of his enemies, fear does not hold sway.

Ernest underestimates his enemies and is easily defeated, coming back with something so wacky it works. Like someone that doesn't know how to play chess throwing off a chess master. Mike Rowe would not underestimate the enemy and would create a more logical and less fantastical battle plan.

Grew up watching Jim Varney. Dr. Otto and the Riddle of the Gloom Beam anyone? One of my favorite spots of his was an anti-smoking PSA he did, where he chided Vern for smoking. "I care about ya buddy! But if you keep going like this, the groundhogs will be deliverin' yer mail, know what I mean?"

If they ever do a biopic, I nominate Mike Rowe.

*length=2:38

On the subject of rain, it's been months since we've had any here in the [normally] Pacific NorthWET ... so ... I am compelled to *promote this wonderfully mournful little ditty in the hope that we won't permanently become the EverBROWN State.


Boy do I miss this guy. I still have my autographed Jim Varney Fan photo [knowhatimean?]

>> ^lantern53:

How do you steal from the poor? I thought they didn't have anything.

Dude, they have stuff, they don't have richness of spirit, remember?

I think the small child means that we condemn them to their disadvantage by denying them access to services and aid, jobs and infrastructure that would lift them out of poverty, or at very least provide them with a minimal level of dignity, care, and common grace while they endure the injustice of your indifference.

[god, stuart varney is such a douche.]

@robbersdog1234

Yeah, sorry man, I am pretty passionate.

I would propose that I never ever put words in your mouth, nor did I "try" to.

What I argue against, is your, and Varney's method of informing people that they should be thankful for what they have based on extremes. This is a very slippery slope, and frankly an ignoble way to reason about your own, as well as the situations of others.

I present exhibit A: "It's not as bad as..."

I present exhibit B: "It's a lot worse than..."

And I propose that instead rationalizing injustice by either of these simplistic relativistic maneuvers, we start to step back and ask,

"Ought things be this way?"

"How should poverty be defined? By quantifying appliances?"

Furthermore, I ask you, who isn't thankful for their fridge when they see African children suffering from malnutrition? Why is it your job to point this out? Why does this strike you as an some sort of divinely revealed insight?

You feel personally attacked, this is because I believe your personal position is one of nullifying concerns about genuine justice based on extremes, and your thinking like Varneys endorses utilizing "relative to the worst possible case on the planet" justifications.

Bareboards has nailed it. I'm being labelled as something I'm really not.

"Of course it is comforting to know that you have access to clean water.

But it doesn't follow that we, as a society should tolerate children lining up at the food bank because they have clean water and a fridge."

I agree completely.

"I say: I realize I have a lot to be thankful for, but just that fact that 2.7 billion people live off of less than $2 a day, does not mean that I should tolerate poverty in my country."

I agree completely.

"If you find Stuart Varney's arguments convincing, you are a grade A twat."

I think this may be the bit that's causing the problems. For the record I'm from the UK, and this clip on videosift is the first I've ever heard of this Varney bloke. I don't know what he's said before, I have no idea of his philosophies. I'm only talking about the very basic point he's making in the video. I'm not supporting him in general, I'm simply discussing a single isolated thing he's said. I get the feeling you're attacking me as I seem to be one of his supporters when I've never even heard of him before.

You really are trying to put words in my mouth where in fact we both seem to agree an awful lot more than we disagree. I believe we need social reform that will help reduce the gap between rich and poor in our countries. I'm on your side here. Don't try so hard to make enemies, go back and read what I've actually written knowing that I'm not a varney supporter. I hope you'll see it makes more sense than you thought.

>> ^robbersdog49:

>> ^Peroxide:

Shame of shames! You people and your hyper relativistic moral compass. What a load of shit, I mean seriously!
You do realize that one can treat any matter of justice and equity with the extreme relativism that you just have? For instance, I could kill your family and respond to your concerns, "Hey, lets be reasonable, I could have bombed a nursery, It's not so bad in comparison...You've actually got it pretty good."
Do you understand why you do a disservice to the norms of justice and equity by way of your extreme moral relativism? (I qualify it with extreme because of course our physical reality and method of interpreting it demands that we compare or engage in relativism to a basic degree.)
You probably don't, anyhow, I urge to seek the truth regarding how our current economic and political structures are simply, unarguably, morally perverse.

Show me where I say our society is fair? I don't think that at all, you're putting words into my mouth. I'm not in any way saying that people in first world countries should live like those in third world countries. I'm not saying anything is wrong with wanting your life to be better. I'm simply pointing out a fact. It's a fact that gets strong reactions, as you've shown. It's an uncomfortable truth that has lead you to attack me and claim I'm saying things I'm not.
If I have a bad day at work it helps me deal with it to remember how lucky I am. That I'm not one of the unfortunate billions who have to live on less than $2 a day (from what I can find, that's 2.7 billion people). I realise I have a lot to be thankful for and a lot of reason to pull my socks up and carry on.
What you're basically saying is that it's wrong for us to try to put things into perspective. That it's wrong for us to recognise the suffering of others. I disagree. I think there are injustices in our societies, of course there are. The tax cuts for the rich and the burden on those who earn less makes for a completely un-equal society and that's not going to help anyone. But it's possible to understand the inequalities in our society and also to be able to see that we have it better than others. It really could be worse.
How about we sit back and look at what we ave got for once, instead of just moaning about what we should have. I'm pretty sure Mahatma Ghandi didn't mean that a nation should ignore the plight of other nations. That people should ignore others because they live in another country or in a different way.
Why is it wrong for me to look at a poor family in Africa and say 'look how much worse off they are than you, be thankful for what you have'? Do you think we shouldn't be thankful? (Please remember this isn't the same as saying we shouldn't want better for ourselves and our families, it means just what it says; that however little we think we have, shouldn't we be grateful that we have that when so many have less).


Did you even read my comment? For your convenience I've highlighted the sections which show that you did not read/comprehend it.

My position is one of Idealism, I will be the first to admit that.

And I recognize that some people are, and will always be, of too small an imagination (or of a heart) to strive for justice within their own borders, as well as around the world.

You present arguments in favor of ignoring genuine socio-political inequity, by comparing extremes.

Of course it is comforting to know that you have access to clean water.

But it doesn't follow that we, as a society should tolerate children lining up at the food bank because they have clean water and a fridge.

You say: "I realise I have a lot to be thankful for and a lot of reason to pull my socks up and carry on."

I say: I realize I have a lot to be thankful for, but just that fact that 2.7 billion people live off of less than $2 a day, does not mean that I should tolerate poverty in my country.

You say: "Why is it wrong for me to look at a poor family in Africa and say 'look how much worse off they are than you, be thankful for what you have'?"

I say: It isn't, of course I'm thankful for what i have you imbecile, but the act of dismissing inequalities simply because you can think of a more unequal situation is a pathetic, often wholly inappropriate practice.

Stuart Varney is the guy who tells the woman who was impregnated by her rapist, that she should be thankful her rapist didn't give her aids also.
Of course shes happy about that, it doesn't mean that rape isn't a rancorous evil.

If you find Stuart Varney's arguments convincing, you are a grade A twat.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'some fox pundit, same old same old, poor' to 'poor, stuart varney, fox, jon stewart, daily show' - edited by xxovercastxx

That hideous mug in the thumbnail is none other than Jim Varney, knowhutimean?