>> ^Porksandwich:

Ripped off it's tail.


"Ripped of it is tail"?

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by ant.

Adding video to channels (Music) - requested by ant.

>> ^messenger:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Squirrel-vs-Lamborghini


Frak the *music ! *isdupe

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Squirrel-vs-Lamborghini

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by messenger. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Your video, Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder flips over and wrecks, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

* quality >> ^BoneRemake:

You know what I appreciate. @gorillaman and @renatojj are using the @ system instead of making copied replies and filling up the entire screen with useless shit.
This is how a discussion should be done.
I appreciate that fact.

@gorillaman Again, stating that values are subjective is in no way a statement about or against morality, it's about the nature of values. These two things don't oppose each other because they're statements about different things.

It's naïve and presumptuous of you to state that Lamborghinis are a waste to society when you're clearly treating your personal judgement as some superior standard. You carelessly dismiss a Lamborghini afficionado as an idiot because he has different values than you. Shouldn't your presumptuousness make you the idiot?

Resources are limited, and that's why we have prices. The economy is a better judge of what prices should be and controlling prices on a large scale is more often what leads to poverty and misalocation of resources in society, the exact things I suppose you don't like about waste.

All these "economic crimes" against society that you mentioned hinge on your delusional understanding that property is not a right, but a mere privilege that the "world" bestows upon individuals. There's the source of your backwards thinking. You're welcome.

@renatojj

You're being misled by subjectivity without accounting for the common set of axioms we all apply to allow us to exist in a more or less shared reality. The one great source of variability of value assessments is capacity for rational thought.

Given that we inhabit approximately similar perceptions; the difference between me and a Lamborghini aficionado is, and I'm forced to be blunt here, I am not an idiot. Any small variations of subjective experience are essentially noise, and likely as not to cancel each other out, compared to the influence of a rational organising mind.

Who are we to consider some values better than others? I'm sorry but deny it as you might this is utter, nihilistic relativism.

The resources used in the creation and maintenance of white elephants like Lamborghinis don't appear out of nowhere; they pre-exist, they're finite, and they belong to the world. Extraction companies are given 'ownership' not from any moral right but as payment for introducing these resources into the economy. That quasi-ownership is then transferred down the line to their eventual consumer. The arrangement can only be valid, however, where those resources are properly used to enrich mankind. Squandered on sports cars, how can you justify their consumption as anything other than a grand act of theft and vandalism?

...

If these posts have accomplished nothing else, I can at least say that having been forced to type it out so many times I will never forget how to spell Lamborghini.

@gorillaman understanding the subjective nature of value does not imply moral relativism, nor is it in any way detrimental to morality.

Morality is about choosing values, you can pick and choose all you like, it doesn't change the fact that values are subjective in the sense that they're not intrinsic to the object of value, they depend on the person/living being that assigns the value.

A baker does indeed value the bread he sells less than the money he wants in exchange for it, otherwise he would not see purpose in selling bread, he'd just hoard all his awesome bread to himself.

Differering circumstances are just one of the many things that may affect one's choice of values. You're not a fan of Lamborghinis, that can be for so many reasons. Maybe they're obvious to you, but your choice of values won't match that of a Lamborghini afficionado, or of a rich guy looking for a powerful status symbol. Who are you to consider your values any better than those of others when it comes to spending money?

I see that trade can be detrimental to a third party, but if there's no theft or destruction of someone else's actual property, treating that as a problem and trying to forcibly solve it by regulating or forbidding the trade is bound to cause more and bigger problems than the one you allegedly want to fix.

It's this lack of foresight that is so common among those who don't appreciate the evolving nature of freedom and competition.

Now you're saying you're not OK with "criminal" thoughts, but would you want to regulate thoughts? We can't directly mind control people, so can you even enforce that without infringing on freedom of expression? Do you think it's worth it to forcibly shape society's ideologies?

I proposed that ridiculous notion expecting you to repudiate it, I can at least appreciate the strong connection you make between personal and economic liberties. Too bad you apparently think we deserve neither.

http://videosift.com/video/Lamborghini-Show-Off-Fail?loadcomm=1#comment-1458351

Envelope yourself in my quote, and take a hint.

@gorillaman so thinking about killing millions of jews is morally indistinguishable from actually killing millions of jews? I guess I'm morally a mass murderer then, lock me up because I just had the very thought formulating that last sentence.

Yes, coercion is part of the natural state of things, and it was also a commodity for trade, or do you think cooperation was absolutely impossible in an uncivilized world? Trade predates civization, before an institution or a group of men took it upon themselves to have a monopoly over coercion so the rest of society could trade without fraud and theft.

This "magic" behind two parties becoming richer in a trade is easily explainable:

Value is subjective.

What you insist in considering waste (Lamborghini?), is not what someone else considers waste.

Two parties become "richer" when they both give away things of less value to each of them in exchange for things of higher value for each of them.

I don't know what "absolute economic freedom" is, why you're making that up, or stating its supposedly impossible requirements.

More importantly, what's the point of arguing economic freedom with someone who doesn't even believe people should be allowed to think differently?

>> ^renatojj:
I'm sure that the harsh reality of the world may force people to make decisions they don't want to. However, it's more efficient to let people figure out what these decisions should be than force them to leave these decisions to someone else. What you truly resent is the economic problem, even though the problem itself is not solved any better with planning than it is in a freely cooperative environment.


It's axiomatically not more efficient to leave every decision to the individual. Stupid people make bad choices. Stupid people en masse make bad choices. Like building Lamborghinis. Freedom in an economic context is another word for apocalypse.

The sole problem with centrally planning an entire economy is it's much, much too difficult. Until we can engineer better brains for the job the obvious strategy is to take your 'freely cooperative environment' as a foundation and introduce as many control interventions as realistically achievable. Like stopping stupid people from building Lamborghinis.

>> ^renatojj:

a good guiding social principle is not imposing one's values on others, specially when it comes to money. Do you like that one?
Do you think it's worth it for society to pay with more discontent and oppression so you can have power over their money, and choose their jobs, and endeavors, so you can make decisions that are better for the economy according to your superior ideals and values?
I guess their sacrifice is a price you're willing to pay, am I right?


That's a terrible principle; it's anarchy. We don't all have the right to fly about doing whatever we want at any cost to society.

We live on a desperately crowded and impoverished world surrounded by a desert that goes on forever. There aren't enough resources on earth to fully satisfy even one person's desires, let alone seven billion. Efficiency and restraint are moral necessities.

>> ^mizila:

They really should have stayed and given the video to the police...


Don't think they needed to, seeing that five billion people witnessed the accident.