>> ^quantumushroom:

Death penalty:
"The 775 killers who were executed between 1998 and 2008 had murdered at least 1591 people. That is an average of 2 victims per executed killer."
Liberals never quite get around to thinking about the victims of the convicted murderers on death row; not ONE of the latter has ever been proven innocent--posthumously or otherwise--since the 1950s.
"If we are to abolish the death penalty, I should like to see the first step taken by my friends the murderers."
-- Alphonse Karr (1808-1890)


Irrelevant (and also wrong, but anyway). Leaving aside the questionable morality of state-sponsored revenge killing, it fails both as a tool for law enforcement and as a fiscally conservative policy. It costs way more to execute someone than to incarcerate them for life.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Ron Paul Health Care: it was a loaded, piss-poor question and liberals know it. Why? Because there are two scenarios for the question. Is our theoretical 30-year-old living in "our" world where there is de facto socialist health care in the USA? I asked someone with a degree in Hospital Admin what would be his fate. Her answer: "If he has no insurance, his care is free."
OR is the scenario taking place in a libertarian free market health care world, which has NEVER been allowed to exist?
I gots no problems with liberal foolishness; it exists in abundance. What I despise is intellectual dishonesty and these crafted propagandist soundbites from the original source, not even the smarmy Liberalviewer, were just that.


It's a reasonable question. No, that world (thankfully) doesn't exist, but it's a world RP wants to create. We're entitled to know how his pie-in-the-sky bullshit would pan out in the real world.

And to hear a conservative complain about intellectual dishonesty and crafted soundbites is really the pot calling the kettle black.

Death penalty:

"The 775 killers who were executed between 1998 and 2008 had murdered at least 1591 people. That is an average of 2 victims per executed killer."

Liberals never quite get around to thinking about the victims of the convicted murderers on death row; not ONE of the latter has ever been proven innocent--posthumously or otherwise--since the 1950s.

"If we are to abolish the death penalty, I should like to see the first step taken by my friends the murderers."
-- Alphonse Karr (1808-1890)


Ron Paul Health Care: it was a loaded, piss-poor question and liberals know it. Why? Because there are two scenarios for the question. Is our theoretical 30-year-old living in "our" world where there is de facto socialist health care in the USA? I asked someone with a degree in Hospital Admin what would be his fate. Her answer: "If he has no insurance, his care is free."

OR is the scenario taking place in a libertarian free market health care world, which has NEVER been allowed to exist?

I gots no problems with liberal foolishness; it exists in abundance. What I despise is intellectual dishonesty and these crafted propagandist soundbites from the original source, not even the smarmy Liberalviewer, were just that.

Hey there, and and a semi-belated (sorry about that) thanks! High praise indeed coming from a fellow Sifter I'd describe in pretty much the same terms; I always enjoy reading your well thought out and reasoned comments. Your presence is very much appreciated, as least on my end. Still sorta feel I maybe gave the wrong impression and was misread as a result (a bit too strident maybe?), but oh well. I never quite feel like I'm describing things the way they appear in my brain, but what can ya do?


In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Thank you for speaking my mind with much more eloquence and brevity than I ever could've!

In reply to this comment by AnimalsForCrackers:
>> ^xxovercastxx:

I don't support the idea that you have to respect every opinion but calling people idiots doesn't help either.
One of the things I've come to hate about debate is people are less interested in discussing, comparing and evaluating ideas than they are about thumping their chests and insulting people. Even women are apparently not immune to machismo.
Does anyone really think this is going to help? Will we (atheists) be more accepted/trusted/respected if we just call enough people idiots? Will theists see the errors of their ways if only we insult them enough?
There's a reason argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy; it's a failure to make any relevant argument and often a sign of incompetence.
The objective of debate is to sway people to your side (though not necessarily the people you're arguing against) and you don't do that by forcing them to shore up their defensive wall.


But...but... calling people idiots and addressing the argument aren't mutually exclusive propositions.

Simple insults aren't ad hominem unless they're used as a substitute for actual reasoning. Calling someone an idiot doesn't magically negate the relevant criticism that preceded it.

"Your argument is wrong because you're an idiot, liar, or some other negative human characteristic picked out of a grab bag to give the appearance of discrediting you and thus, your entire argument." = ad hom

Sure, I suppose you could make that argument that even a biting, rational critique interspersed with some choice derogatory flourishes can undermine any attempt at bringing the other person to reason, but I disagree that a definitive statement like yours can be made on whether it's ineffective on everyone; I like to think there's multiple paths of approach. Often the target of ridicule isn't the one you convert, but the people on the sidelines watching.

That's fine. I was never quite sold on the idea anyways.

I think it's both hilarious and insane that you think Wal-mart simply re-arranges a local economy. A lot of Mom & Pop stores are niche market but make a lot of their profit off your everyday Joe & Jane buying garbage. That is probably the majority of consumer product in America - garbage. I remember I was really good friends with the owner of a record store in a small town but he made most of his money from larger "indie" rock bands on Atlantic records or some shitty metal band. 98% of everything else was underground punk, pop-punk, grindcore, power-violence, thrash, straight-edge hardcore, emotive hardcore, gravity style, D-beat, black metal etc etc. But, he made most of his profits from garbage. Don't think about anything folks, just work your shitty job and hope your wife doesn't cheat on you. Remember to pay your taxes. BLEH!

The other problem in my eyes is that a lot of middle-class & lower-class people inevitably shop at Wal-mart because of cheaper prices. I remember reading an article about how Wal-mart lost revenue last year but luxury stores (Neiman Marcus, etc) finances skyrocketed. The rich are now uber rich and they burned up the middle-class as well as their jobs so we could get them to new heights of wealth. Wal-mart and a lot of shitty huge corporate stores are VERY much apart of this topic & apart of the problem America faces. As long as there are huge big-box stores stamping out local business and selling product cheaper because they are such a gigantic virus-like company - local economies across the entire country will never get "well". Make these stores into Co-ops and maybe we'll get somewhere, we have to snuff out at least some of these greedy fucks.

It's still stunning to me that people are able to stick up for such a piece of shit company.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Wal-mart... crazy rant about how it kills your neighbors...
I've never quite understood this argument. Wal-Mart doesn't kill local businesses. It rearranges them and then creates more jobs. Every Wal-Mart that goes up has about 10 restaurants, 2 car dealerships, 1 Gamestop, a couple book stores, and a bunch of other ancillary businesses sprout up literally overnight right next to it once it opens. These places employ - that's right - your neighbors. It has been demonstrably proven over and over again that Wal-Marts increase employment and revenue in the communities they enter. Do they shake up the environment and force local shops to change it up? Of course. But for every guy that curses Wal-Mart because he had to close his Mom & Pop, there are 20 other guys who are cheering Wal-Mart as they take showers in new business money.

I'm sure that's a HUGE consolation to the other 40 people that lost their jobs.>> ^rychan:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Wal-mart... crazy rant about how it kills your neighbors...
I've never quite understood this argument. Wal-Mart doesn't kill local businesses. It rearranges them and then creates more jobs. Every Wal-Mart that goes up has about 10 restaurants, 2 car dealerships, 1 Gamestop, a couple book stores, and a bunch of other ancillary businesses sprout up literally overnight right next to it once it opens. These places employ - that's right - your neighbors. It has been demonstrably proven over and over again that Wal-Marts increase employment and revenue in the communities they enter. Do they shake up the environment and force local shops to change it up? Of course. But for every guy that curses Wal-Mart because he had to close his Mom & Pop, there are 20 other guys who are cheering Wal-Mart as they take showers in new business money.

I agree that it's a crazy rant, but I'll take it further. Any argument about making or killing jobs is a crazy rant.
Our goal, as a society, is to reduce the number of jobs needed in stupid stuff (like retail), so that we can put more of our collective resources into things that actually improve us as a society (research, education, health care).
If a WalMart meets the retail needs of a community with 40 jobs instead of 80 independent merchants, FANTASTIC. That means we all get to spend less money on equipping and feeding ourselves, and more money on schools and space programs. If you went out of business because a WalMart showed up, your job was not adding enough value to the product to be worthwhile. Sorry, the free market has spoken. But don't worry, we haven't reduced the productive output of the human race, this just means that we have more resources to spend on science instead of mom and pop shoe stores.
So stop bragging about your stupid government project "creating hundreds of jobs". Anyone can create make-work jobs. The only job the government should be creating are those that directly serve the public good and that can't be financed on an individual scale. Basic research falls into this category. So does policing and homeland security, although I think we've gone way overboard on security spending.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Wal-mart... crazy rant about how it kills your neighbors...
I've never quite understood this argument. Wal-Mart doesn't kill local businesses. It rearranges them and then creates more jobs. Every Wal-Mart that goes up has about 10 restaurants, 2 car dealerships, 1 Gamestop, a couple book stores, and a bunch of other ancillary businesses sprout up literally overnight right next to it once it opens. These places employ - that's right - your neighbors. It has been demonstrably proven over and over again that Wal-Marts increase employment and revenue in the communities they enter. Do they shake up the environment and force local shops to change it up? Of course. But for every guy that curses Wal-Mart because he had to close his Mom & Pop, there are 20 other guys who are cheering Wal-Mart as they take showers in new business money.


I agree that it's a crazy rant, but I'll take it further. Any argument about making or killing jobs is a crazy rant.

Our goal, as a society, is to reduce the number of jobs needed in stupid stuff (like retail), so that we can put more of our collective resources into things that actually improve us as a society (research, education, health care).

If a WalMart meets the retail needs of a community with 40 jobs instead of 80 independent merchants, FANTASTIC. That means we all get to spend less money on equipping and feeding ourselves, and spend more money on schools and space programs. If you went out of business because a WalMart showed up, your job was not adding enough value to the product to be worthwhile. Sorry, the free market has spoken. But don't worry, we haven't reduced the productive output of the human race, this just means that we have more resources to spend on science instead of mom and pop shoe stores.

So stop bragging about your stupid government project "creating hundreds of jobs". Anyone can create make-work jobs. The only job the government should be creating are those that directly serve the public good and that can't be financed on an individual scale. Basic research falls into this category. So does policing and homeland security, although I think we've gone way overboard on security spending.

Wal-mart... crazy rant about how it kills your neighbors...

I've never quite understood this argument. Wal-Mart doesn't kill local businesses. It rearranges them and then creates more jobs. Every Wal-Mart that goes up has about 10 restaurants, 2 car dealerships, 1 Gamestop, a couple book stores, and a bunch of other ancillary businesses sprout up literally overnight right next to it once it opens. These places employ - that's right - your neighbors. It has been demonstrably proven over and over again that Wal-Marts increase employment and revenue in the communities they enter. Do they shake up the environment and force local shops to change it up? Of course. But for every guy that curses Wal-Mart because he had to close his Mom & Pop, there are 20 other guys who are cheering Wal-Mart as they take showers in new business money.

I watched some of your video..I may finish it at some point. I have to give it credit, it's quite a sophisticated attack vehicle for atheism. It attempts to decontruct the mechanisms for faith but so far it has some glaring errors. In the video covering prayer in the deconstruction process, it has a fundemental misunderstanding of Gods omniscience and the purpose of prayer. While it is true that God knows our needs before we ask

Matthew 6:8

Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

it isn't true that God has already decided a matter before we ask about it.

Genesis 18:17-25

Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Now this is a special case, but Abraham negotiated with God and He decided what to do based on that negotiation. It is the same with prayer. The Lord may be set to do one thing, but may change His mind based on intercessory prayer done by one or several Christians. He may impart a blessing upon someone that normally wouldn't have received it if no one had asked about it.

Prayer is more than just asking for things, it is about communion and growth. Your friend made the mistake of making the Lord completely impersonal, by thinking he was just receiving commands from the master control. Ironically, he thought this was bringing him closer in his personal relationship with God when it was actually driving him apart. This is what happens when people think they know better than God.

1 Thessalonians 5:17

Pray without ceasing.

Luke 6:28

bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

etc

I feel bad for him, specifically because of this scripture:


Hebrews 6:4-6

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

It is quite shameful what he has done, and I can tell you there is more to this story than he is saying. It's not that I doubt the essential truth of his story, that he was once a devout Christian. That much was obvious to me the first time I heard him speak and looked in his eyes. There is just another spirit at work here which doesnt match the atheistic mindset. It's hard to say what his agenda is but it's not pro-atheist. It's pro-something else, but whatever it is, it's anti-christianity. The pretense of respect he is giving God is just a subterfuge..he doesn't have any respect for God what so ever..it's just to make the medicine go down smoother. The repetitive music is another clue to the disingenuousness of the presentation.

As for me, I don't fit any of his criteria. I was once just like you. Blind to the spirit, a strict materialistic, and suspicious of all religion and all supernatural claims. I rejected most of it as outright nonsense. I grew up that way and saw no reason to change.

One day God tapped me on the shoulder and let me know He was there. Your guess is as good as mine as to why. It's not as if I deserved to know. If I had to guess it would be that I was honestly interested in what the truth was, and I was willing to change my ways if necessary. It was more important for me to know the truth than to be right.

To convince myself God isn't there I would have to give myself a lobotomy. I would have to gouge my eyes out and pour superglue in my ears. I would have to do it deliberately, in spite of Him..meaning, I would have to deliberately deceive myself but I am fairly certain He wouldn't let me forget.

In reference to your scenerio, I think you make a mistake about Gods omniscience as well. God doesn't have absolute foreknowledge in this scenerio. For instance in Gen. 15:13-18 God predicts that the fourth generation of israelites will reach Cannan. But it is actually the fifth generation that reaches it because of disobedience. This means His prediction was based on probability.

For a being to truly have free will, their actions must to a certain extent be unpredictable to God. After God had Abraham prove his loyalty to Him by going through with sacrificing Issaic, God said "Now I know you love me". The verse suggests that until that moment, God didn't know that for sure.

This isn't to suggest God doesn't have foreknowledge at all. He obviously does, since He prophicies about things hundreds or thousands of years away and they come true. It is to suggest that God limited Himself for our sake. We have evidence of this in the person of Jesus Christ. Though He was God, He put aside His power and capability and knowledge to be fully submitted to the Fathers will. He depended on the Father for everything. Not just as an example, but for His mission to be accomplished through His revelation of the Father to the people.

It goes to the ontological argument, of what is the greater being. The one who cannot do anything original because everything he could do has already been done in His mind, or the one who can craft something even He couldn't fully anticipate. I go for option 2. It doesn't make sense for God to get mad at someone for doing something He already knew was going to happen.

My theory is the scenerio itself is certain. It has a beginning, it has an end. What is inbetween He may have certain ideas about, but obviously open to modification. He may plan for every possible scenerio but never quite know which will unfold because He has given us a measure of unpredictability.

So in this scenerio..

God creates a perfect world, giving man a blank slate for good or evil

Man chooses evil, God enforces the rules, death comes into the world and creation falls

Man is corrupted from sin and does continual evil that God is always trimming back and correcting

God works within the evil man creates, but it reaches the point of no return..

God is ready to give up on humans but finds one human he can work with

God resets the world, gives man another chance through Noah

Man is up to his old tricks but God sends His Son into the world this time to redeem Creation

Jesus imputes His righteouness and sinless nature into humanity, restoring them, takes our just punishment onto Himself and dies on the cross for our sins

He rises again breaking the power of death over humanity (which came from sin) and giving everyone the way to eternal life

God sets a date to judge the world, and will send His Son back when the church has spread the gospel to the four corners..

Jesus returns, comes back for His church and destroys the kingdom of the antichrist.

God judges the world and repays each according to their deeds
After the judgement, God destroys the corrupt creation and remakes it entirely new, and this time it will be permanently perfect. Thanks to Christ, the ones who believed in Him will have perfected natures and will sin no more and live forever in paradise

If you want to talk about greed and self-interest that is fine. I am a student of the human nature, and have many logical proofs I can offer even from a secular perspectives. My communication can always use fine tuning, however, I endevour that people should know the truth, because though they may stubbornly reject it at this point, will at some point need it, and more than that, just plain need to hear it. You discount the power of God completely, but I know He is always at work and the truth will facilitate that every time. I also appreciate that you noticed the unfair treatment I am receiving from other sifters. There is no reason to downvote these videos. They are well made and aren't masquarading as anything other than what they are. It's not as if they're in danger of becoming popular. They sin when they do this, and this is written about them:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I do dig Ecclesiastes - easily the most raw, human and cynical chapter of the good book.
http://videosift.com/video/Scorpion-vs-Black-Widow-Intense-sheesh?loadcomm=1#comment-290039
In short, here is why I think the main, overarching plot of the Bible is silly.
Summary:
God creates flawed humans.
Flawed humans do flawed things.
God punishes all present and future humans because of the flaws in his prototypes.
After many generations, God drowns 99.9% of his land dwelling creatures save two of each. (not sure why the fish get off so easy)
Despite this massive genocide, humans are still flawed.
God impregnates a human virgin woman - in a committed relationship - without consent - who gives birth to a human/God hybrid son. (Kinda weird and rape-y to be honest)
The son is tortured and 'dies for our sins'. (What does that even mean, couldn't God just forgive us without this cruel theatrical charade that so few people of the world are physically able to witness?)
Jesus comes back from the dead (which isn't really that big of a deal, considering he is a part God).
Finally, after all of this violence and suffering, God decides to destroy the world, and take those who believe in him to heaven, and to punish those with skeptical or scientific minds with eternal suffering.
I mean, I guess I can understand mass murder, if God thinks so little of us that our destruction is no more tragic than Atari burying thousands of copies of E.T. in the desert. But if we are insignificant ants, then why the strict moral code that forbids murder? Are we unique and special creatures, or just crash test dummies to be toyed with?
None of the actions of God seem wise for a being of such knowledge and power. The Bible sounds like mythology. It sounds like a combination of campfire stories, moral parables, juicy pulp fiction, dirty jokes, political posturing, medical advice and pre-scientific speculation. It sounds like an anthology of the best of the best literature of early human civilization.
If God were real, why doesn't he just openly and clearly communicate it? Why all the rites and rituals? "Hey, dft, this is God you atheist schmuck.... or should I say ex-athiest schmuck. Put down the pork and put on your beanie!" That would be clear and to the point, and if done convincingly, would add a pretty decent guy to the ranks of his faithful.
Also, his followers are so hung up on pride, that they miss a good chance of making a connection. I told you that I don't believe in Satan, but that I do oppose the greed and ruthless self interest that your Satan seems want to champion. If you cared more about the principles of the bible than the principals in the Bible, wouldn't you be serving your lord better? Shouldn't you nurture the things we have in common and downplay the stuff I think is absurd? Baby steps. Religionists have no strategy or common sense when it comes to apologetics. You argue with me as if I believe in God and Satan.
Anyway, I've made these points so many times, and they just bounce off the framework of faith, just as your points bounce off my framework of reason. There will be no headway because our criteria for belief run so contrary. I think it's cool that you fight for what you believe in so passionately, and wish people wouldn't downvote your videos to the point that they are killed. I do think you could come up with more productive styles of argument.
I'd be curious to get your opinion on this video: http://videosift.com/video/Why-I-am-no-longer-a-Christian-Must-Watch

You Can't, You Won't And You Don't Stop
Mike D Come On And Rock The Sure Shot

I've Got The Brand New Doo-Doo Guaranteed Like Yoo Hoo
I'm On Like Dr John, Yea Mr Zu Zu
I'm A Newlywed, Not A Divorcee
And Everything I Do Is Funky Like Lee Dorsey
Well, It's The Taking Fo Pelham, One, Two, Three
If You Want A Doodoo Rhyme Then Come See Me
I've Got The Savior Faire With The Unique Rhyme And
I Keep It On And On, It's Never Quitting Time And
Strictly Hand Held Is The Style I Go
Never Rock The Mic With The Panty Hose
I Strap On My Ear Goggles And I'm Ready To Go
'Couse At The Boards Is The Man They Call The Mario
Pull Up At The Function And You Know I Kojak
To All The Party People That Are On My Bozak
I've Got More Action Than My Man John Woo
And I've Got Mad Hits Like I Was Rod Carew

You Can't, You Won't And You Don't Stop
Ad Rock Come And Rock The Sure Shot

>> ^MarineGunrock:

@NetRunner - No one is saying the Fire Department will use the keys for ill will. They're saying that an individual could. Please, allow me to render your point moot and borderline retarded. People are assholes and degenerate pieces of shit. Giving your key to the government is just one more way for someone to fuck you over. Yes, I'd MUCH rather the FD break my door down than to have a key to my house just out there floating around.

And if you look at my comments again, you'll see that I said that's a legitimate complaint, but that additional safeguards would be the natural response to that if you otherwise agreed with the idea.

For example, have the keys kept in a safe, to be checked out by the fire supervisors for their shifts. Logs get kept about who had which key when, and if one goes missing or a crime gets committed with one, then there's a paper trail that can be used to track who did what.

I'm well familiar with insiders stealing public information. I never quite brought myself to say it earlier on this thread, but I work for a financial services company that handles the transactions for, well, essentially every bank you've ever heard of.

As a result, I'm pretty familiar with the kinds of precautions you can put in place to prevent information theft. It seems like physical asset theft is even easier to track since you can't just take a picture of it with a cameraphone to steal it...

>> ^MarineGunrock:

As for your comment regarding apartments: No, tenants do not own the space, but it is their private area. Even the companies that own them aren't allowed to enter without permission.


I'd want to look at the law about this, but I've had landlords literally have people into my apartment for a tour without my permission before while I was out.

Hell, multiple companies did it, even.

They only seem to need your permission if you're there.

Still never quite understand why people feel the need to destroy things whether they win or lose.

*eia

I've never quite understood why fundamentalists look for obscure evil (satanic cults, subliminal messages, democrats, etc.) when there's plenty of obvious evil (slavery, child molestation, dire poverty etc.) in the world. Maybe because it's cheaper and more pleasant to fight imaginary evil on youtube than to actually show up at a soup kitchen?

Counterpoint:

Aesthetics is 'a set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, esp. in art.' It's typically undervalued in a capitalist society and a lot of times never goes beyond a niche market, which is odd since so many decry the 'McDonaldization' of society (and why diss McDonald's?--they exist precisely because they DO give a sh-t about their customers).

Shaving with a straight razor can be considered an art form. It's also an experience unto itself to be shaved by a pro with such an implement. You can buy machines that heat up lather at home but they never quite do it as well as the one at the shop. Also, the act of sitting prone in a chair while a stranger holds a blade to your throat is quite an impressive act of trust. There could be all the barber licenses in the world on the wall as well as a cop holding a gun on the barber...and he can still cut your throat before he's shot.

I dislike the trend to ban masculinity from society. Women are many things but (thank ye gods) they are not men. The idea of the 'man cave' is an insult when the entire home used to be a man's castle.

>> ^bareboards2:

I agree that it is terrible that this is happening to men now. I don't think that is progress, I think it is a disease that is spreading.
The point you are missing, though, is that these are the VAST MAJORITY of the images that women see. Pay attention to the next movie or TV show you watch. How many "normal" guys are cast in parts? How many "normal" women?
While you are watching, switch the genders in your mind and imagine a woman who is of the same attractiveness level as the men. I think it will shock you when you realize that you see normal looking men ALL THE TIME and rarely do you see normal looking women.
What percentage of all posters/images are JUST male body parts? What percentage of men in the media fit this impossibly high standard?
You can count on one hand the number of "normal" looking women on TV.
It is so pervasive you guys who think we are whining don't even see it.
Compare that to British TV. Men and women both are routinely ... normal. They are chubby, plain looking, balding if they are male. It is a relief to watch British TV.
And I didn't tell you to shut up, @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ala_bala" title="member since February 9th, 2007" class="profilelink">ala_bala. I said think for ten minutes and then speak. Which clearly you didn't do.

>> ^schlub:
They definitely do this with men in advertising. Just watch any Gillette commercial. Huge bulging muscles and a penchant for ridiculous technology. A very poor representation of the majority of men.



Thank you for posting this, because i was just about to say - from what i see on tv, there is a roughly equal number of "perfect" men in adverts about aftershave, deodorant, shaving utensils, alcohol adverts, etc... If i compare, on the tv i watch, the number of perfect men to women? I'd say it was equal. Then i was about to say - does this say something about the difference between the sexes if it's only women who cannot help but judge themselves?

So there was my rant which never quite was, because i appreciate your comment and maybe i'm spoiled after all, perhaps it's not so bad here.

However, i really don't like the direction her argument takes, and i had to stop the video because i was that pissed off with it. "Objectifying is the first step on the road to abuse!" I'm sorry, but i can't buy into that and i never will. I don't like the logic whatsoever. It reminds me of the "violent video games cause violence" nonsense. There's always been violence, always will, video games won't change that.

In the same way, there's always been abuse and i would argue that abuse nowadays is far less accepted in our society than ever before. Racist, homophic, whatever. We are completely intolerant of those things now. Historically "raping" your wife wasn't really seen as rape, you were allowed to beat your wife if it was deemed reasonable, that kind of thing.

Absolutely unacceptable nowadays since the ADVENT of the objectification of women in advertisements - the evidence is hardly on her side. Cmon lady... I *hate* that argument.