>> ^Skeeve:

I can see both sides of the argument pretty clearly and they both have a point (though I don't know what the Fox guy means by "richness of spirit").
I spent 2 years making less than $20,000 CDN annually and I did fine. I never missed a mortgage/utilities payment, kept a (shitty) car on the road, had a smartphone, high-speed internet and cable tv and ate fairly well. I was even able to go out for supper or out for a few drinks now and then.
It sucked and, obviously, I would have liked it if I had made more money, but I was never facing starvation or homelessness, etc. If I faced serious hardship there were any number of things I could do (eg. cancel cable), and things I could sell (XBox, TV), to make my money go further.
While the system may be flawed, there are bigger flaws in the obsession with possessions and the brains of people who have no money but spend frivolously.


Low-income Canadians = a family earnings less than $20,000 with two children. -wiki

Oopsie doopsie, looks like you were actually middle class that whole time...

>> ^robbersdog49:

This guy, however much you may hate fox pundits, is making a simple point that's uncomfortable but actually true. There are two different definitions of poor, the one that applies to first world countries, and the one that applies to third world countries, and they are about as different as different can be.
I think he's wrong about the spirit thing, there are plenty of reasons some people have more money than others and it rarely has much to do with the person's 'spirit'. However, it's undeniably true that the 'poor' of America and the UK and so on are very, very much better off than the 'poor' of India or Africa.
JiggaJonson, while your life may be harder than that of others around you it's a whole world apart from the poor of Africa. How far do you and your kids have to walk each day to collect enough contaminated water to survive? What? You get clean water piped right to your house? Yeah. Poor. I see.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be helping those less fortunate than ourselves in our own societies, but I also think those people should appreciate quite how lucky they were to be born where they were born...


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.

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. "
~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."
~ Mahatma Ghandi

[As a last point, I must add that I do not support in any way, the hyper-consumptive society, or the society stricken with affluenza, but such a phenomena is in no way an argument against a more just and equal society, but is in and of itself another issue all together.]

>> ^razzyl:

>> ^bcglorf:
I'm afraid to add this also where I find some Hitchen's arguments to be the weakest. The Christian belief that believers will be sent to heaven and those who don't will go to hell is not some threat against non-belief. It is simply a different belief, and atheists shouldn't find it any more threatening than the shadows in their closet.

If only Christianity was so fluffy and benign. Not sure if the The American Christian Lobbyists Association got that memo. Or the AFA. Or Dominionists. Or Moral Majority Inc. Or The Social Contract - National Religious Lobbying group. Or the hundreds of other Christian based groups that have and will pump millions of dollars into lobbying and political campaigns until every citizen in the US and other countries bends to their beliefs.
Or maybe I'm just being a little cynical...


By that standard nobody is benign. People with a common interest lobbying the government to support their common interest. Shocking.

Christians are among those opposing any so-called christian groups wanting to limit religious freedoms or impose religious beliefs on the people though. Freedom of religion has it origins from christians themselves. Eventually minority protestants, catholics and other smaller sects got tired of being killed off by the other side and agreed that separation of church and state amounted to an appropriate and mutually beneficial 'truce'.

Making out as though all christians are X because some people calling themselves christians are X is a fundamental and very basic logical fallacy.

>> ^bcglorf:

I'm afraid to add this also where I find some Hitchen's arguments to be the weakest. The Christian belief that believers will be sent to heaven and those who don't will go to hell is not some threat against non-belief. It is simply a different belief, and atheists shouldn't find it any more threatening than the shadows in their closet.


If only Christianity was so fluffy and benign. Not sure if the The American Christian Lobbyists Association got that memo. Or the AFA. Or Dominionists. Or Moral Majority Inc. Or The Social Contract - National Religious Lobbying group. Or the hundreds of other Christian based groups that have and will pump millions of dollars into lobbying and political campaigns until every citizen in the US and other countries bends to their beliefs.

Or maybe I'm just being a little cynical...

I'm afraid to add this also where I find some Hitchen's arguments to be the weakest. The Christian belief that believers will be sent to heaven and those who don't will go to hell is not some threat against non-belief. It is simply a different belief, and atheists shouldn't find it any more threatening than the shadows in their closet.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
I never understood why she had to be so rude on the show. Ruined it for me. And it's ruined her reputation here in the UK as a TV presenter, as everyone now thinks of her as a sarcastic bitch who ruins game shows by being needlessly antagonistic and hostile towards the contestants instead of a reasoned and intelligent current affairs presenter with a twinkle in her eye, as she was formerly.

It's the character in the show, they are meant to be mean...
eg. Aus version (which came out after the US version) has a woman that resembles Anne Robinson in both demeanour and attitude (not to mention red head + stern glasses).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QlfQGWz1c8
(watch from 2.15)
I know that, but you see it was Anne Robinson's idea to present the show this way. She never used to be like this.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

I never understood why she had to be so rude on the show. Ruined it for me. And it's ruined her reputation here in the UK as a TV presenter, as everyone now thinks of her as a sarcastic bitch who ruins game shows by being needlessly antagonistic and hostile towards the contestants instead of a reasoned and intelligent current affairs presenter with a twinkle in her eye, as she was formerly.


It's the character in the show, they are meant to be mean...

eg. Aus version (which came out after the US version) has a woman that resembles Anne Robinson in both demeanour and attitude (not to mention red head + stern glasses).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QlfQGWz1c8
(watch from 2.15)

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your video, Anne Robinson (Weakest Link) Meets Her Match, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 10 Badge!

>> ^Darkhand:

How do you say "Daaaaayyummmmmmmm" in English?

"Golly gosh."

Great string of videos recently. I loved the Weakest Link pwnage.

>> ^acidSpine:

[drunken sidenote] What are peoples' opinions on the de-capitalisation of of common internet acronyms such as lol, wtf etc


Acronyms are a means of reducing the amount of effort required to convey something, right? Being lazy enough to say lolomgwtfroflwaffle, but interested enough in linguistic convention to capitalize, seems inconsistent. Does that matter? IDGaF

>> ^acidSpine:

Lol, every time she tried a comeback he just owned her better.
[drunken sidenote] What are peoples' opinions on the de-capitalisation of of common internet acronyms such as lol, wtf etc


I'm for ANYTHING that helps the economy!

Your video, Anne Robinson (Weakest Link) Meets Her Match, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^shponglefan:

Combo burn!


Mo-Mo-MONSTER Burn!