>> ^Morganth:

wtf


*wtf

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jon stuart, the daily show, 4th amendment, terror, no trial' to 'jon stewart, the daily show, 4th amendment, terror, no trial' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^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.]

Excellent talk post!

The theory of Quantum Consciousness is facinating.

I think that the theories of Gustav Bernroider as well as Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff are probably close the the true nature of consciousness.

Unless we are all just simulations being run on a future supercomputer.

As to the question, "Is death the end of everything?" I say no--only because of a highly subjective, personal experience which will never convince anyone else--I believe (that's small "b" believe) that there is an unseen connection (didn't there used to be a spellcheck in here?) between all life--possibly the whole universe--through which we continue in some fashion.

It may surprise some that I am not an atheist since I so joyfully attack dogmaitc theists. I'm a walking contracidtion.

Definitely and *quailty discussion.

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

@NetRunner

Thanks net, but it still seems like the idea of "progressive" isn't a real idea. I think the word is dead, it conveys no true meaning. If you ponder on someone is who is a Calvinist, you know where they stand on the issue of predestination. If you ponder about someone who is a "progressive" about their view on government censorship or immigration, you don't get the necessarily same answer. If the only justification that a progressive is, is happiness, that is a very poor standard. Happiness is completely subjective. If there is no other justification for the progressive position, then the position is completely irrational. If so, there is no reason for me to accept the progressive position as a position, but a feeling guided with post-rationalizations.

John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism is actually on my reading list, I hope to get to it later this year, after The wealth of nations which I also haven't read. Going through all the stuff I should of read by now

@GeeSussFreeK, I think you're looking for some unifying philosophical principle that ties the liberal/progressive policy positions together.

Essentially all the liberals I know are some form of consequentialist. Meaning, they believe the moral value of an action depends on the consequences of that action for overall human happiness. When liberals disagree about a particular policy, we're usually debating which option best maximizes human happiness.

I say all liberals care about individual rights, because they think human happiness is greatly increased when individuals are empowered to act to fulfill their potential. You can't do that if you live in a society where you can be locked up without due process, or can be jailed for speaking your mind, or can't marry the person you love. But it also means you can't live up to your potential if you can't get an education, or needed medical treatment, or have to put up with dangerous working conditions in order to earn the money to support yourself.

On your question about whether social conservatives are in some sense justified by their desire to ban gay marriage "for the greater good", I would say that there's nothing wrong with them trying to do something for "the greater good", they're just wrong about gay marriage bans having a positive overall effect on society. They're discounting the suffering bans on gay marriage causes, and they're fabricating the suffering allowing it would cause for non-gay people.

If you want a more rigorous framework, I suggest looking at John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism. I won't say that's necessarily the bible of all liberalism, but it certainly should give some insight into the thought process of the left when it comes to thinking about right and wrong (and between a just society, and unjust society).

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I am a little confuzled about calling @Skeeve and my conversation both true and a non sequitur. I guess because I am addressing a more theoretical, man kind building question and you a more practical one. Your talking about the more practical, of making things work now, I am talking more about how I want things to work, for always. A the difference between the tangible and the ideal I guess.

It seems you weren't all that confused, that's exactly what I was getting at.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I have been considering the statement "the needs of the many..." for the course of a few weeks now.

...

I find that the statement of "the needs of the many..." very closely relates to the Democratic position.


I think the "the needs of the many..." quote is a pretty crude statement of the type of moral reasoning you find on the left. The more refined version can be found described in John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, but if you want a brief synopsis of the philosophy, try this.

I would also say most modern liberals tend more towards a Rawlsian political philosophy.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
When your tribe is 20 people, and the fate of your people all hang in the balance of routine decisions, evolutionary speaking, to survive, it is easier to remove the rational component of this choice. The rational implications of every choice you make determining the fate of your entire race is a burden that doesn't aid in decision making. It is much "better" to program in an emotional response and have that being post-rationalize later, intelligence is actually more of a burden than a tool in this area. This way, we remove the impotence one might face in the light of such a larger than life issue, and set in that mind a continuing sequence of emotional ties to the event through post-rationalizations.

I totally agree. I tend to think of a lot of what humans use rationality for is to rationalize decisions they really made at a gut/emotional level.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the reason Democracy works so well, given this situation, is it very closely mimics the "rules of the jungle." By that, I mean force. Democracy is an interesting formalization of the rules of the jungle. Instead of the force being a stick or a knife, it is a vote.

This, on the other hand, I think is totally false. Democracy is a tool to try to tie large, diverse groups into a single tribe by getting rid of the "tribal leader makes the decisions for the tribe" aspect of tribal society. The reason we want to do that is that even though we're no longer just a pack of 20 trying to deal with tigers in a jungle, we are still facing all sorts of threats from the outside world (e.g. disease, natural disaster, food scarcity, water scarcity, etc.), as well as threats generated by our inability to cohesively work as a unified tribe (war, pollution, persecution, extreme resource inequality), and that we should all be united in dealing with that common cause.

The "rules of the jungle" is more something you see in markets. The idea in most right-wing philosophy is to keep the idea that tribes should stay entirely hierarchical, and that no tribe should feel fundamentally obligated to any other tribe. Strong tribes should be allowed to amass resources they take from weaker tribes, and weaker tribes get killed off. Theoretically there's some method for preventing these inter-tribe conflicts from being violent, but nobody's worked out a way to do that other than creating a state who will use sticks and knives (and guns and nukes) to make people play by the rules of the market by force.

The evolutionary component of markets is really the key to what its proponents like -- evolution brings us forward progress, after all. The position over here on the left is that morally speaking, evolution is cruel. People like me see the benefits of markets, and the moral downsides, and want to try to find a way to make markets less cruel. People much further to my left are moral absolutists who want them destroyed because they're inhumane.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The course of discovery seems to be without end for man. It seems inevitable, that in time, each human will have access to such a level of technology that any one person could end all life on the planet with little to no effort. Our only current solutions for it are that of liberty, which would only take one crazy person to end it all, or regulations, of which would have to be of the most extreme kind to protect against knowledge that is easy to acquire and use. It seems that the current rules that bind this planet along with mans advancement in technology have set us on a collision course with a cruel destiny. While not a certainty, I do believe it is certain that the tools of Democratic force will not save us from our own self imposed destruction.

I think the way to deal with it is to realize that the choice between "regulations on world-destroying weapons" and "liberty demands that crazy people have the right to own world-destroying weapons" is actually a really, really easy choice, since one of them ends with no one left alive on Earth...

Will "democracy" protect us from being stupid about that choice? No.

But if humanity is ever going to make it through its technological adolescence, we're going to have to set aside these childish notions that "liberty" only exists if you can completely disavow any sense of obligation to the rest of humanity.

That's all very interesting and poetic but here's the rub...

He makes a lot of truth claims in that video; what research is he basing these truth claims on?

"Research" will be a major theme when I respond to your longer comment. You asked in the longer comment "How do we measure these thing, based on what scale?" Research plays a huge role in knowing that.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
i am going to respond my friend.
it may a take a bit but while i take care of that business,let me share stuart wilde and his take on the ego which i wholeheartedly agree with:

i am going to respond my friend.
it may a take a bit but while i take care of that business,let me share stuart wilde and his take on the ego which i wholeheartedly agree with:

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Jamie Stuart, Idiot with a Tripod, Man in a Blizzard' to 'Jamie Stuart, Idiot with a Tripod, Man in a Blizzard, Painted Sun In Abstract' - edited by Throbbin

The best of Stuart Hall: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn8OzZ3DfjU

>> ^Zyrxil:

That can't be the official narrator for this when it airs in the UK...can it? It's gotta be just some guy dubbing it intentionally using a weird butler stereotype voice.


It can and it is!
It's Stuart Hall, he used to voice "It's a Knockout", in the '70s and '80s, in the same style.