Personally, I did not find this video very funny - well, other than in the "better-to-laugh-than-to-cry" way - thus the fear, history and controversy channels (and no comedy channel). The parody channel was added by @ant, and I interpret that as synonymous to "a travesty" (no offense to transvestites), especially vis-à-vis what you point out, i.e. that gang-rape is a very male (and almost always heterosexual) vice. What is really alarming is that there are still hateful bigots out there depicting the lesbian "agenda" in this way today (see for example Pat Robertson on "lesbian babykilling"). It seemed to me that the * lies contained in this propaganda film were so obvious that adding that channel would be redundant, but perhaps I should just in case?

One caveat though: women can and do commit sexual abuse, albeit to a far, far lesser extent than men.

Some statistics for the US: http://ifritah.livejournal.com/211376.html


>> ^bareboards2:

So, sorry to be a downer on this almost hysterically funny vid...
I watched this with great amusement until the "gang rape" part started. It took a turn to the dark for me, but I thought maybe I was being all uber-sensitive. So I sent the link to my Resident Expert Lesbian and asked her what she thought. She said this:
"I mean, I GET the melodramatic aspect, which is sort of amusing, but because this is how we've been portrayed as fact in recent HIStory, it's so creepy AND damaging and you know it must have been believed. So it's painful for me to watch as well, you know?
Women just don't rape, and especially don't gang rape. Grossest male behavior. I'm so glad I know so many gentle lovable men! Anyway, thanks for sharing-I never knew this was produced!"

>> ^Quboid:

Is there any way to see these in the UK? I can't get any TDS stuff.


Proxy.

*talks

Is there any way to see these in the UK? I can't get any TDS stuff.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
@blankfist : "A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few."
How? The way I see it, deregulated corporations would pay their employees less for more work and could easily fire the sick, elderly or 'superfluous' workforce. The bigger companies would be unstoppable to lower the price of their products and crush smaller competitors over time with unregulated business practices. I see a Victorian Age industrialism similar to dystopian's scenario. Which ultimately failed and led to worker protection mechanisms.
How would the workforce actually be empowered by libertarianism?

I think the major problem is with how you and others on here may view corporations. If you see them as private entities born from unbridled capitalism, then you're not seeing the whole picture. Corporations are created by government. I know people create the business itself, but corporations are a fictitious entity legitimized by government. Without government you'd have no corporation.
For example, if I decided today I wanted to bake and sell cupcakes I could do that, but I couldn't incorporate without the government. And corporations enjoy the benefits that only government can give them, such as subsidies/welfare, limited liability, and regulations and permits (that keep less profitable and smaller businesses from competing).
So, if you open the market, and I mean make it free without regulations and subsidies and permits and limited liability and so on, then you'd not have corporations. Why? A) they wouldn't exist on paper, because government would be out of business altogether. B) they'd not benefit from unfair advantages that government gave them.
This would allow more people from the bottom to pull themselves up and create businesses without the typical barriers government puts into place. This would also mean wealth would be transfered away from the large businesses and into the hands of the smaller businesses, because the number of businesses would increase and thus the amount of competition. Does that satisfy your question?


Not really.

If all state-influences (regulations and subsidies et cetera) to all businesses are gone, how can a small competitor then compete with a larger competitor? (I'm working under the presumption that there had not been a null-setting of all capital.) Would the large competitor not be able to be more efficient and therefore cheaper? Would not the workforce of any of these businesses be working under worse conditions? (than in a regulatet environment)

>> ^DerHasisttot:

@blankfist : "A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few."
How? The way I see it, deregulated corporations would pay their employees less for more work and could easily fire the sick, elderly or 'superfluous' workforce. The bigger companies would be unstoppable to lower the price of their products and crush smaller competitors over time with unregulated business practices. I see a Victorian Age industrialism similar to dystopian's scenario. Which ultimately failed and led to worker protection mechanisms.
How would the workforce actually be empowered by libertarianism?


I think the major problem is with how you and others on here may view corporations. If you see them as private entities born from unbridled capitalism, then you're not seeing the whole picture. Corporations are created by government. I know people create the business itself, but corporations are a fictitious entity legitimized by government. Without government you'd have no corporation.

For example, if I decided today I wanted to bake and sell cupcakes I could do that, but I couldn't incorporate without the government. And corporations enjoy the benefits that only government can give them, such as subsidies/welfare, limited liability, and regulations and permits (that keep less profitable and smaller businesses from competing).

So, if you open the market, and I mean make it free without regulations and subsidies and permits and limited liability and so on, then you'd not have corporations. Why? A) they wouldn't exist on paper, because government would be out of business altogether. B) they'd not benefit from unfair advantages that government gave them.

This would allow more people from the bottom to pull themselves up and create businesses without the typical barriers government puts into place. This would also mean wealth would be transfered away from the large businesses and into the hands of the smaller businesses, because the number of businesses would increase and thus the amount of competition. Does that satisfy your question?

@blankfist : "A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few."

How? The way I see it, deregulated corporations would pay their employees less for more work and could easily fire the sick, elderly or 'superfluous' workforce. The bigger companies would be unstoppable to lower the price of their products and crush smaller competitors over time with unregulated business practices. I see a Victorian Age industrialism similar to dystopian's scenario. Which ultimately failed and led to worker protection mechanisms.

How would the workforce actually be empowered by libertarianism?

>> ^burdturgler:

>> ^NetRunner:
..."I would've liked to have heard what they said in response to these questions...

The way I see it, what they had to say was "We know what's best for you, hand over your keys".


That is the impression this video gives. But it's made by the people who're protesting it, and has all the honesty and integrity of a political campaign ad. They showed them asking what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse. Had the answer been "we know what's best for you, hand over the keys", that would've been included in this clip, don't you think?

>> ^NetRunner:

..."I would've liked to have heard what they said in response to these questions...


The way I see it, what they had to say was "We know what's best for you, hand over your keys".

The way I see it, the BackToTheFuturePart2 logic is that moving forward in time you remain in the same 'time-line' or 'time-path', just like you fast-forwarded... where-as traveling back in time necessarily jumps you to an alternate dimension the moment you arrive and start impacting things at any level.

If this logic were strictly adhered to I don't see how you could ever return to your original future once you've gone to the past... you'd always be returning to a new future impacted by the past you just messed with. ... something to think about before cranking that dial back to prehistory!

^concerning the above comments, I will concede two points: first, this is obviously an angry rant that is not to be taken too seriously (cf. the comic it is transcribed from). Second, the author clearly has Christianity (and the Abrahamic monotheisms in general) in mind when using the term "religion", causing its use to partially exclude certain religions.

That being said, the sentiment of contempt and disrespect for people's refusal to use their "god-given" brains in the domains of ethics, superstitious beliefs, etc., is perfectly understandable, and does not mean that the bearer of such sentiment has no empathy for the human being, even when considering said human being an idiot.

An extreme example: I have nothing but contempt and not one iota of respect for the WBC gang, and yet I would rush to their guru's aid (as probably any one of you commentators would) if he were to be hit by a truck. Does that mean I think he's not stupid? Or suddenly have respect for him? NO. Only basic human empathy.

As for the Weinberg quote, yes, I am aware of the Stanford and Milgram experiments, which show the effect of authority on human behaviour. Weinberg's quote implicitly integrates those experiments; indeed, what greater and more unquestionable authority is there than God(s)? How many disgusting, unethical and barbaric actions and wordlviews are continually sanctioned by religious authority (and the weight of the sheeple's adherence thereto), that no self-respecting ethical and empathetic person would otherwise accept?

As for Communism, it is nothing but a state religion, with the Party replacing God. I won't bother addressing the moronic argument of "Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc...", which has been thoroughly debunked by many speakers far more eloquent than myself (e.g. Hitchens).

Finally, @quantumushroom, your answer about atheists being delusional not only makes no sense (unless you're teetering into solipsism), but quoting the Bible does not help your case in the least. Benjamin Frankin's comment seems to be a cynical criticism of the masses' stupidity and immorality, not a sanction of religion's merit.

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the want of it." Benjamin Franklin

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

I was born in '67
the year of Sgt. Pepper
and Are You Experienced

Into a suburban heaven
yeah it should've been forever
it all seems to make so much sense

But after a while
you realize time flies
And the best thing that you can do
is take whatever comes to you
'Cuz time flies

She said luck is what you make it
you just reach out and take it
Now let's dance a while

She said nothing ever happens
if you don't make it happen
And if you can't laugh and smile

And laughing in the summer showers
that's still the way I see you now

How does time break down
with no marker, things slow down.
A conference of the strange
and your family is deranged

I could tell you what I'm thinking
while we sit here drinking
but Im not sure where to start

You see there's something wrong here
I'm sorry if I'm not clear
can you stop smoking your cigar

And the coat you wore to Alton Towers
Is still the way I see you now

How do you know your god is the right one if you rely on faith?

Because He responds by direct revelation. He lets you know He exists, and who He is. It's not however like He is always standing in front of you..you have to faith day by day..a bit like a family member who went off to another country that has no lines of communication. You have no way of seeing them but you have faith that they're still alive and having fun on planet Earth.

Your analogy suggests that the evidence for god is all around us, what evidence, specifically, are you pointing to?

Romans 1:20 says this

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Personally, I can attest to this truth. I had seen Gods attributes, His power and divine love namely, all my life..I had the puzzle pieces but not the picture. It's only when I found out God is real that they all fell into place.

How do you know you're pleasing god so that the evidence will be forthcoming as you suggest?

The main sign of living a life pleasing to God is the transformative power of the Holy Spirit. When you live without sinning, you are spiritually purified. In Christ, you are a new creation. You die to your carnal, worldly self and are reborn in the Spirit. The evidence is in your own behavior, internally and externally. Myself, I have been utterly transformed..still have a long way to go obviously, but I am quantifiably better than I was before, in every way. He lets you know in other ways but this is the main evidence.

How do you know what is the will of god if the very nature of god and his decisions is mysterious and beyond our understanding?

Because He stoops to our level and lets us know personally.

The bible is flawed horrendously before you go to that easy answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo&playnext=1&list=PL80294485C9139857

debunked: http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart

Hehe yeah, I was wondering how you were gonna do it. In any case, it was my own error, so I'm happy for the ones who read the rules properly.. *bites hand* >> ^lucky760:

Sorry to hear that, gwiz! We wouldn't be able to run the contest that way because we would have no way to see the wall posts of all the entrants.>> ^gwiz665:
Aw man, I misunderstood the rules and posted on my own wall.
Fail on my part. Congrats to the winners.

Sorry to hear that, gwiz! We wouldn't be able to run the contest that way because we would have no way to see the wall posts of all the entrants.>> ^gwiz665:

Aw man, I misunderstood the rules and posted on my own wall.
Fail on my part. Congrats to the winners.

Let me put it this way, the way I see it every god is as likely to exist as any other god or gods seeing as there is no empirical evidence pointing specifically to one or other. Without some sort of personal revelation I can't see how I could make the leap to Allah or Yahweh or Baal or the Hindu gods or scrap any notion of spiritual belief altogether. I would also be very interested to read this CS Lewis essay that you seem so taken with if you could provide a link.