How it would've gone down if I were the appraiser:

Me: I'd say this worth $200 - $300. I'm sorry, it's just not authentic.

Her: Oh, well ok.

Me: You know what, I'd like to buy that off of you for $500 just because you came down here and gave us your time.

Enoch.

That was the entire point of the video. You're putting what harris is saying down to over-generalisation. This is the point he's making in the video - its not.

Religion is fundamentally not true, or certainly the premise of it. If it was true, it'd be classed as some sort of science. Harris is saying in the video that its the non believers who give him the most grief, because they think religion commands some sort of respect, or appraisal.

Fact is, it doesn't. THese 'over generalisations' are not false. This is really what religion is like. The fundamental belief in something not true/no proof of existing and basing an entire life around this false system - this is true in ALL of the 6 main religions in the world.

With regards to the palestinian bomber - why did the IRA not do suicide bombing?? Eh? Because the palestinian bomber believes he is doing something in the name of God, and doing a righteous thing before he dies. This is exactly the point Harris was making - no matter how much political or economic motivation there might be to bomb something - to bomb yourself??? No. How about the fact that they SAY 'Allah oh akhbar' all the time.
I watched a documentary recently where the reporter went to the schools training the kids in the Quran, constantly, every single day, even though arabic wasn't even their normal language.
Now fair enough, lack of education breeds stupidity, which therefore breeds more of a susceptibility of believing in religion, but the fact is, religion and a belief in god IS the tool. What you've said about the suicide bombing is clearly not true, you need to either read more or watch more documentaries on it (I advise you to google Dispatches)

It's exactly people like you that harris was referring to - the religions sympathizers. Its you people who need to realise how dumb and stupid religion is, and how it should be given no respect whatsoever, and mocked at instead.

Fundamentalism is simply following religion to the point of violence, or basically being a 100% retard. Believing religion if you're a 'moderate' - you're still 99% an idiot. Religion says this : 'Believe this, because it says so in this book, and God says so.' It teaches you to believe in something without questioning it, or looking for evidence - by using 'faith'. As westy says - this is the belief in something without evidence. I actually have more respect for fundamentalists - because they are following their religion 100% truthfully as the book describes. No picking and choosing BS that the moderates constantly do.

If you are religious, you're immediately into that cycle of irrational thinking, no matter how moderate or fundamental you are. Forget fundamentalism - get to the core of the problem - RELIGION.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Under this so-called 'awful' system in the U.S. I had a family member who was diagnosed with NHL and skillfully treated by excellent doctors in top-notch medical facilities. They recieved over a half-MILLION dollars in medical care and I paid a grand total of $5,000. I'd be paying just as much (or more) under a social system in the form of taxes and 'denied care'. Every social plan so far includes premium payments, copays, and prescription drug costs - so 'free' it ain't...
People get medical care in the US just fine. The sad-sack horror stories that neolibs drag out are rare exceptions. Most people in the US get fantastic medical care at very affordable prices. For every person who has a bad experience in the US system, there are equal numbers who have horror stories about thier socialized medicine.
This dictomatic language of "Oh my social system is PERFECT and your private one is hell on earth...!" is so typical of the neolib left. Neolibs can't have a discussion on an issues without resorting to propoganda, logical fallacies, exaggeration, and outright deception. They have no sense of nuance and substance.
The fact is that there are many very valid arguments against socialized medicine. The US government's current medical care programs are abject failures. With a track record like Medicare and Medicaid, why would anyone with a brain assume that the US government is going to run a clean, tight ship with its so-called 'public option' of Obamacare? And PLEASE... Spare me the bologna of "well the government runs medical care just fine for congress and the military..." People who say that crap are comparing grapes to basketballs.


I'm a cancer survivour and a type I diabetic, I had a tumour on a nerve branch, and had to have six weeks of radiation therapy, total cost to me: The parking at the hospital, and the skin cream for the therapy, which was fifteen dollars. The only thing I waited for was for my doctor get better, after he was recovering from surgery (which was two weeks.) I had all these procedures appraised (including talking with a nutritionist who rearranged my menu while I was having the therapy.) The surgery and radiation, going off a hospital in Virginia, came to just over 180,000 dollars. Most of it being the surgery on the nerves.

How much would all those tests and surgery, and therapies cost in the US, with all the hidden costs of pharmaceuticals etc. And yes, Canada does have other expenses, we're helping fight in Afghanistan, so we're shouldering the cost at the same time. I doubt anyone has ever said their public health care is perfect, but everyone can agree: It's a lot better than Americas current one. So "every social plan" includes premium payments, copays, and prescription? Well, they don't cover all prescriptions, but they reduce the cost on a lot of them in Canada. But, I didn't have to pay for a damned thing for my cancer surgery and treatments, other than parking at the hospital and some cortazone. I pay my taxes, and I'm glad I can help people like me or who are worse off than me.

How can he be "damn sure" that he will outlive his children? Obviously most father's would desire to see their children live beyond them. How does this somehow invalidate the Christian understanding of an eternal God. Is the argument that only a true loving Father would euthanize himself before seeing one of his children die? What if the child dies unjustly (i.e. is ruthlessly murdered for no reason)? Would the loving father's obligation be to end his own life? Or would a loving father seek justice for his son's meaningless death? If I have misunderstood Hitchens' point here, please explain.

On the matter of the Austrian incestuous and deplorable father, I believe Hitchens' appraisal of the actual crime and situation is well put and accurate. It is nothing short of a heinous and grotesque injustice. Words fail to grasp the depravity. Hitchens' goes on to seem to suggest that Christianity would overlook the injustice of the crime, and that a Christian's response is "that's alright." I believe this reveals a grave misunderstanding by Hitchens of Christianity. Christianity takes justice very seriously, an understanding of the Biblical teaching on evil and sacrifice cannot deny that. The Bible also does not encourage inactivity to injustice. In this lifetime Christians are required to "promote justice" (Micah 6:8). I honestly cannot understand how one can criticize the Bible for taking evil of this nature (or any nature for that matter) lightly. And yet that is exactly what Hitchens appears to be doing.

Tyranny (a tyrannical God) is a logical conclusion to a perception of the Gospel message that is absent of righteousness (to make something right; to right a wrong; to seek justice).

^Why must you lower the level of discourse, rougy? Name calling and labeling are a bit childish, don't you think.

You're being outclassed and out-debated by a university student in her early 20's (and everyone else involved in this thread) while you, a self proclaimed "smart person," lament the fact that you haven't yet left the most wonderful country in world. As far as I can tell, the reason you feel you should leave is because people exist in America with views that oppose your own. I don't know what to say to that. I'm speechless so, I'll just site MLK on Socrates: "Socrates felt that it is necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal."

In short, debate is good for you, rougy!


MOVING ON...

To me, one of the most important things to remember in regard to civil disobedience is that authority is given to all to make the world the place that we want it to be. We are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Remember that Socrates, Gandhi, and MLK had no formal authority. They were able to impact the world through MORAL authority.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws...

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law."

St. Thomas Aquinas said, "An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." He also said, "An unjust law is no law at all."


While we may have cushy jobs that we don't want to risk losing at the moment, it is OUR responsibility to keep our government in check. When the time for action comes, not a job nor jail time will dissuade me from "nonviolent direct action." Our governments continue to pass legislation that slowly whittles away at our self reliance and personal freedoms, and if we keep on this path we will one day wake up to a nation in shambles.

Two things come to mind when talk of real "change" or discussion of a "revolution" comes up: 1.) There has been a trend away from self-reliance in this country and increasing dependency on social programs. Are the social programs the cure for the dependency or are they the cause? As the citizens become more and more dependent on the government, they become less and less motivated to defend the common good. We are ever more selfish (hence the rise in mental disorders and depression, in my opinion) and 2.) Living in America (or in the affluent nations across the world) is becoming a spectator sport. We feel it is inconvenient to have to: research something for ourselves, become self-reliant, read a book, get out of debt, study history, engage in thoughtful discourse, be a good neighbor, take responsibility for our own actions and situation, etc. We are so "connected" to television, the internet, MP3 players, and mobile phones that we are becoming increasingly disconnected from each other.

What am I getting at?

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were willing to give their lives for religious freedom. Socrates gave his life for the law. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. devoted their whole being (and ultimately their lives) for the cause of freedom and equality. Change takes a lot of hard work and dedication. I mean, it takes EVERYTHING from at least one man. If we want policy change, we write letters to the editor, we start a website, we knock on doors, and so on. When it really matters (such as what the world protested against in2003, civil disobedience is in order. Anything worth civil disobedience is absolutely worth our cushy jobs. But, we'll need moral justification and moral leadership. I don't think that we're past that as some have said. I DO, however, think that wading through opposing propaganda would be more difficult today than it has historically been, but I digress.

The question I have is, "Which modern day issues/hypothetical scenarios would require civil disobedience to be solved?"


>> ^rougy:
>> ^thepinky:
As much as I respect your opinion, rougy, I think that your suggestion is utter drivel.
Pinky, this goes without saying, but you are exactly the kind of person that I want to get away from when I sell everything I own and move to Europe. I'm sick of butting heads with people like you, deedub, QM, WP, and all of the other rightwing chickenshits here on the Sift, and in real life.
It's just not worth it any more, to me.
But I did rethink my statement and realized it wasn't really civil disobedience, so here's one for you: blue collar sick-outs.
Every blue collar person in Washington D.C. should call in sick once per month, preferrably during the same week.
Delivery people should stop delivering things to health care insurers as a form of protest. Waitstaff and bartenders should stop serving food and drinks to industry bigwigs.
It won't work unless it's done en masse, so this being America, it probably won't work at all.
Marching in the street doesn't cut it. We have to hit them where it hurts: in their pocketbook.

I'm wondering how much this beautiful piece would be appraised for.

He should take it to Antique Roadshow!

>> ^imstellar28:
I'm not refuting anything, I'm asking a question: please provide evidence supporting the consensus. I have yet to ever receive an answer. You and others are making a claim here "Alan Keyes is insane" yet nobody has provided a single reason for this. I'm not making any claims here, I'm asking a question!
Again, if this man's claims are insane the evidence should by definition be readily available--why has nobody provided it, especially if I said I will watch your entire personal queue?


People said he was insane colloquially, probably because of several of his views being percieved as far from reality. I don't think anyone here is really saying he his clinically insane, despite a couple comparisons being drawn.

The main problems I believe include him calling Obama a "radical socialist", which we've gone over already. That appraisal is waaay off. He takes it to the extreme like some of his other points, like Obama somehow single-handedly destroying the USA. He spins the infanticide thing like crazy, removing all context whatsoever and turning it into something like "Obama supports killing babies", literally inferring that's his general stance. Like it applies to every baby, like he personally wants them dead. Again, way off reality.

And the Obama not actually being president thing? Wow. He says it isn't a laughing matter. It is. The level of fact-ignoring is worse than creationism.

1. These accusations have been rebutted time and time again, yet they keep repeating the same old arguments. For example: "He refused to show his documents!" comes up EVERY SINGLE TIME. At one point during his campaign this came up. Later on he provided the documents. They're on the web even. Anyone can see his birth certificate. But, no, it keeps getting repeated as a "reason" and "evidence". Let's keep calling this orange a banana over and over and over and...

2. It's on technicalities anyway. Blindly trying to apply law without regard to it's original intent. Even if some obscure law changed his status, why would it even matter? With a straight face can you make the argument that a word in our language determined by arbitrary law is more important than evaluating the situation itself? You know, how a judge would? To determine whether one is qualified would you not look at the evidence and use reason?

I'm sure there's more I'm forgetting that he said. His appraisals of reality are simply in the extreme, presented as black and white issues, with no context.

This is why he is being colloquially labelled as crazy... just because he's "on the same side" as others who make rational arguments against, say, economic stimulation, doesn't mean HIS arguments or he himself is rational.

Ladies and gentlemen, Top Gear presents the Understatement Of The Year:

"The only problem with it, really, is producing the hydrogen..."

I hope nobody is taking them seriously here. What an utterly dishonest appraisal of the electric vs. hydrogen debate.

You say: Europe is choking to death from socialism.

No, they're deteriorating from it and on the path to serfdom. But as I said, they live within their means, and their lack of military spending and their lack of domestic oil reserves has resulted in better energy efficieny and policies, because they were spurred by high gas prices that we never had. You can HAVE a benevolent dictator that works to your advantage for a while, but the enablement of certain powers gaurantees inevitable costs that outweigh those benefits. You need to understand this, and why our forefathers bothered with a constitution limiting government from the get-go. They knew it, they lived it, they saw it happen, and as a result of this document, gold money, and unmitigated markets, we rose from nothing to the most powerful, affluent country in the world. Government was miniscule on the way up, it will be humongous on the way down.

It was 1913 the path to destruction began, the federal reserve and the income tax were passed in the same year. The Fed's inflation of the 20s caused the correction of 29, then turned into a long depression by Hoover and FDR's interventionist policies. The Smoot Hawley bill was a protectionist reaction resulting in retaliatory tariffs on American exports. Taxes then went from 20% to 63% under hoover, then 90% under FDR. Anyone with any money to hire people, sat on it. What revenue did come in from those taxrates, government used it to pay government workers to basically dig holes and fill them back up again. The policies always destroyed more wealth than they created, decreasing unemployment for the sake of it. You simply can't centrally direct the desires and wealth brought about by millions of diverse individuals freely transacting and trading with each other. They also ordered farmers to plow under fields and slaughter livestock to reduce the supply of food, because they believed falling prices would hurt the economy. This is also the same guy that confiscated people's gold (for which he should have been arrested), absolved the banks of having to pay people back despite their fraudulent lending, and allowed Pearl Harbor to be a massacre. It wasn't until he died and Europe was ransacked by a world war that we got out of it.

Europe is getting there. One thing you can always count on when you're putting your faith in benevolent dictators spending other people's money, is that it will invariably corrupt and cascade in on itself. Socialism has failed in every country that's tried it, including ours now. It fundamentally perverts the risk reward system of capitalism. Because if you're gauranteed the same share regardless of your contribution to the pool, why excel? Where's the incentive? If you're spending other people's money, why be thrifty? It's not like you're wasting something you worked hard for.

Fannie and Freddie were pseudo-government institutions in many democratic congressmen's campaign coffers, formed originally under the socialist ideal of making housing more affordable. Every one of their managers got golden parachutes. They accomplished exactly the opposite in the end, prices are now exorbitant, bid up by inflation equipped flippers, who left the banks with the mortgage after they realized that the appraisal price was phony and that legitimate buyers had been priced out of the market. Now the banks are stuck with the collateral, homes they loaned money out to buy at the appraisal price, well above what they can sell it back for. The market would have them decline in price, good for savers.

Or how about the Federal Reserve? Why self-regulate from a fear of bankruptcy when the government creates an arm to backstop it with inflation? If there's no risk of consequence, what is the disincentive to taking huge gambles with other people's money? Likewise, if you're a depositor, why not invest in the highly leveraged bank down the street offering a 5% yield by gambling on subprime? The government insures your deposit if they fail, so you have zero disincentive to give them your money with which to make those bets. If there was no FDIC, no one would be reckless enough to do it, thus that business model would have never existed.

If people don't start realizing how government policies change human behavior that create economic distortions and disruptions, we are gauranteed an inflationary depression.

I say: Check your facts again, Europe is excelling, and we're declining, and between the two, we're vastly closer to libertarian philosophy.

We are nowhere near being 90% capitalist. The majority of our GDP is controlled communally by the government, making us a socialist nation by definition. We are absolutely drowning in socialist failures and my list should have convinced you of that. Yet you sit here and tell me to vote for someone who just passed a trillion dollar bailout mortgaged on my children to reward someone else's bad behavior.

You say: Monopolies don't/can't exist.

I say: Google Enron and California.

Enron wasn't a self-sustaining one like government monopolies, it died a quick death, thank god (today, it would probably be bailed out by your money). It was a scam business enabled by ignorant employees and citizens who have been completely brainwashed into company directed 401k programs, as well as speculative, non-dividend paying investments. Enron never had to prove it was making money by paying a dividend because people allow themselves to be fooled by wall street valuations of stocks. If you're buying a stock without a dividend, you're purely speculating on the price going up or down. Just like the tech stocks of the 90s. People thought they were rich on paper, but when the stocks crashed, they had nothing. Because they didn't sell at those paper prices, they didn't complete the gamble by guessing the top like Mark Cuban did, who was one of the lucky ones. People illogically shirk responsibility on learning basic economics and stock principles and then flail helplessly for the government with which Enron was colluding to help them. It's idiotic. Rather than admit the mistake and educate others, they flip out emotionally, call on the government to recompensate their loss with their neighbor's money, and resign themselves to repeating the same mistake. It never would have been possible if they had taken twenty minutes to be skeptical and educate themselves.

Why don't you start listening to libertarian Ron Paul advisor Peter Schiff? The guy is brilliant in explaining this stuff, and predicted most of this mess years in advance while most economic types were dumb enough to confuse problems for strengths.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhJaVEWAG24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-a_r4qx4WE


When's the last time you saw a small, independent grocery store?

Yesterday. I go to several. The big chains won't carry most of the organic and specialty items that I want. And I purchase my grass fed meat directly in bulk from a local cattle farmer, stuff's amazing.

You say: Regulation of banks with pesky laws is impossible, so let's get rid of them so that people are forced to police the banks themselves.

I say: Why stop there? Why not get rid of property laws too, and let people engineer their own way of defending their property from thieves?

That would actually be a good start because banks would start fearing failure again. But I want fraudulent fractional reserves banned. You can't currently take them to court for it, because it's federally sanctioned. See, politicians are big spenders with a symbiotic relationship with the inflationary banks. They don't want honest money, they don't want a system where they are limited to direct taxation, because taxes are overt appropriations that elicit a lot more resistance. The average citizens can SEE how much exactly he's being taxed. Not so with inflation, it's very confusing and has a lag effect. The trillions that the Fed is adding to the balance sheet over the next year is going to result in hyperinflation, not immediately, but down the road.

^ I'd love to hear a realistic appraisal of the effect withdrawing all of our troops from all foreign nations would have.

I like the idea, I'm just not convinced it's practical or safe.

Assuming we do it, what then?

Do we pursue bin Laden in any ongoing capacity?

Do we concern ourselves with nuclear proliferation? If so, what actions do we take to prevent it?

Do we honor treaties like NATO?

Do we continue to sell arms to other countries?

The thing that always gets me about the Antiques Roadshow is how interested and attentive the people try to appear when the appraiser is talking about the history of the piece and describing it for the viewers, whereas the owner really just wants them to get on with it and hear how much they can pawn it off for.

It's still a fun show, though.

You made an old man cry, you evil appraiser you!

Thanks, snoozie. That means a lot to me, coming from such a music enthusiast like you.

I can't help it, but it's true. Don't get me wrong; I love modern music, obviously. Pink Floyd is one of my favorite bands, and they revolutionized the science of sound. I don't think I need to explain that to you. Still, at the the end of the day it's always the sound of natural instruments that really do it for me. One of my favorite Floyd tunes is "Wish You Were Here", and one of my favorite Yes tunes is "Mood For A Day". Of course there are MANY other favorites I have from those bands, but I find myself going back to those songs over and over more than most.

You know my feelings about God, but I tell ya, there's something in nature that man simply can't beat when it comes to music. Maybe it will always be that way. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
*clap, clap, clap*
A synth is cool, but a cello is beautiful. One of my best friends owns a music store and he's an expert in vintage Martin guitars. In fact, he does the PBS road shows to appraise guitars for them. He has a huge collection of Martin guitars from the 20s and 30s. I can't afford one. I was with him a few months ago when he sold one for $55,000. But, I get to play them. Strumming one of those things will raise the hair on the back of your neck.

A synth ages and it just shorts out. A wooden instrument ages like fine wine. A great musician on a great instrument......you can't beat that.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I hate to sound like a music snob, because I'm certainly not. (Some of my music sifts will certainly attest to that. However I must say that despite all the technological advances in sound production, it's still hard to beat the sound of natural instruments when they're played well. That's why I love posting videos of acoustic guitar performances, along with videos of other natural instruments too.

*Beautiful

*clap, clap, clap*
A synth is cool, but a cello is beautiful. One of my best friends owns a music store and he's an expert in vintage Martin guitars. In fact, he does the PBS road shows to appraise guitars for them. He has a huge collection of Martin guitars from the 20s and 30s. I can't afford one. I was with him a few months ago when he sold one for $55,000. But, I get to play them. Strumming one of those things will raise the hair on the back of your neck.

A synth ages and it just shorts out. A wooden instrument ages like fine wine. A great musician on a great instrument......you can't beat that.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I hate to sound like a music snob, because I'm certainly not. (Some of my music sifts will certainly attest to that. However I must say that despite all the technological advances in sound production, it's still hard to beat the sound of natural instruments when they're played well. That's why I love posting videos of acoustic guitar performances, along with videos of other natural instruments too.

*Beautiful

I remember seeing this a few months ago and being upset by the blatant racism I heard in O'Reilly's words. But, I think I have a slightly different perspective this time around (mostly because of Obama's 'More Perfect Union' speech).

Yeah sure, it was a statement that revealed the way O'Reilly sees black people, but it was more than that. In his own way, he was talking about how he didn't see the stereotypes that his mind was conditioned to expect. It was painful to hear those things said but it was also a chance for a more open conversation about racism because it was a searingly honest appraisal of Bill-O's beliefs.

While I would have advocated for all the criticism and condemnation in the world when I first saw this, I can see now how that is just a reactionary and defensive position to take. And, ultimately, a response such as that is in no way productive or enlightening. To really tackle an issue as large as race in America is, you have to actively engage with it and talk about it.