>> ^zamal:
Most of you won't care, and maybe rightfully so, but the "poor guy" is know in France beacause he is the former coach of world and European champion swimmer, Laure Manaudou.

Apologies to any Frenchmen reading this, then. The intent was not to insult him, but rather to point out the unfortunate position he was in

Most of you won't care, and maybe rightfully so, but the "poor guy" is know in France beacause he is the former coach of world and European champion swimmer, Laure Manaudou.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laure_Manaudou

*woohoo channel welcomes the adult swimmers.

Now be important quietly. OH man this stuff is *dark.

>> ^demon_ix:
>> ^enoch:
while i feel a profit driven health system is bad,it is not inherently evil.
they are a publicly traded corporation and it is in their charter to put profit over all else.this creates a conflict that can only be resolved by removing the profit motive.

You don't feel that a corporation dealing in health and human lives placing profit above people is inherently evil?
There are many many many places in the business world to make copious amounts of capitalistic profit at the expense of the consumer. This should not be one of them.
But I suppose people with ridiculous profits can spend quite a bit of that on lobbyists and PR campaigns to make you feel the devil you know is the best thing ever!


no no no,
you missed my point.
my point is that corporations are designed this way.
we..as people,make moral and immoral choices.which can be construed as evil depending on the relative context.
a corporation is not a person,and to assign morality to a non-entity is like calling a machine evil.
the machine may be designed to do evil things but it,the machine,is not evil.
example:
if you were a CEO of a major health insurance corporation and decided that your company was no longer going to refuse care,nor were you going to drop liability on those with terminal problems.
while in a humanitarian sense that would be wonderful,you would be fired immediately.
why?why would you be fired for doing what we all feel is the "right thing to do"?
because you destroyed the cost/benefit equation and therefore lost profits.
which in turn means shareholders lose money,which in turn means less will invest in your company.
evil is subjective,to label a corporation evil based on it doing what it was designed to do is like calling a shark evil for attacking a swimmer.
it does what it was designed to do.
what we have to do is change the design.
i do not think health care should be profit driven because it becomes a conflict of interest,and only those who need care actually end up paying the price.
please watch the documentary link i posted.
its long,but it will give you the context of what a corporation actually is,where it came from and how it can bode both good and ill for a society.

I don't get it, why is she an idiot?

Pilot whales eat mostly squid and are normally not dangerous to swimmers.

This is abnormal behavior by the whale.

>> ^charliem:
I call shenanigans, you aren't working a damn thing with just your own body weight.


Yeah, bicyclists, swimmers, runners and climbers are all wimps.

danny

"Perhaps if i was able to have a conversation with someone who knew it back to front, then i would be able to give a better opinion on whether or not it would work."

Go ahead, ask any question you want. I will converse with you. I don't know everything about it, but I have agreed with and advocated it without regrets for 43 years.

But first be clear that you are only dealing in this particular issue with one portion of her philosophy, politics. And that politics is not a stand-alone set of principles. Its validity depends entirely on the more fundamental branches of Objectivism that define the nature of existence (metaphysics), the nature of our means of grasping and retaining our knowledge of existence (epistemology), and given the nature of those and of human beings (in principle), by what standards we should measure our choices of thought and action in our quest to survive and thrive in accordance with our nature as the beings that we are (ethics).

That is just a peek at the monumentality of the subject. But you do not have to be an Olympic swimmer before you can wade into the shallows. Also, it doesn't make any difference where you start. If you have an open, honest mind, it will take you where you need to go.

Since politics is at the top of your present interest list, start here:

Capitalism is not right because it works. Rather, it works because it is right. It is right because it is derived from and dependent on a proper definition of the nature of human beings. To wit: Life or death is the fundamental alternative for all living entities. Humans are the only living beings that cannot pursue either alternative by their automated bodily functions alone. Our unique means of survival is our capacity to know the nature of existence and to choose the actions we take to deal with it - i.e., we are rational, volitional beings.

If one chooses the alternative goal of death, no ethical or political system is needed. But if one chooses to live -- to survive and thrive -- then life itself becomes ipso facto the standard of measure for all of your choices of how to think and act and what values to pursue - your ethics. If you lived outside of any society, your ethic -- your moral rights and wrongs would be your only governor. You would succeed or fail in accordance to how correctly or incorrectly your ethic was defined and implemented in your daily life.

But when humans live together in a society and interact in long term relationships, a problem arises. The volition that enables us to choose, inherently enables us to err. The autonomy one would have over one's own life outside a society can be destroyed in a society by the sole enemy of freedom, physical force. Therefore, in order to extend a proper human ethics in the context of the life of an individual into the context of a society of men, coercion by physical force must be removed from human interactions and all exchanges of values among men must be voluntary.

Now re-read the defining principle of Rand's radical capitalism as I stated it in my comment above. That is a moral principle. If you can undermine the logic of the morality underpinning that principle, we can begin to talk about capitalism not working. But, if you can't, you should begin to look deeper into it than you have. For if autonomy is a moral prerequisite, then our present political system that condones the use of coercion by majorities to take what they want from minorities is the system that does not work. It does not work primarily because it is immoral. And the left and right are equally guilty. Only the kinds of tyranny they favor differ.

Note also, that it is a dangerous leap from being unable to imagine how a system you understand so little would function to the claim that it simply would not work at all. Your intolerance of bastards is a suitable example. What Rand achieves in her system is that bastards may continue to be bastards in spades, because they have in her system no access to power. The government in her system has but one job and no other: rid the nation of coercion. No one can acquire anything from anybody in such a society without enticing them to trade it to them voluntarily.

And keep in mind, that autonomy is the freedom to exercise your own volition, which is a freedom to be fallible yourself that you must grant others as well. To be a good capitalist, you must tolerate the absolute right of others to be as irrational as they want so long as they do not force it on you or anyone else.

aww c'mon don't be so sensitive spoco2. Like you said, they don't know what they're talking about. You're putting too much emotion into it.

When I was young I called olympic swimmers fishes, and said I wanted the famous singer on TV to be my mom because she had bigger jugs than my mom. Although, my mom did get a little offended when she kept digging into it, and I eventually said something like, 'because she's prettier than you'.


It's all kid talk. Don't dig deeper if you don't wanna hear something you might not like. Just don't give them the chance to explain themselves and quickly change the subject LOL.

>> ^westy:
As obvously if sumone states something that is corect then it is corect regardelss of how well thay say it, yes you could argue that there argument would be better recived if thay used comunicated it in the most clear way possable.

id mutch rather sumone sead something that was right in a bad way than sumone who sead something wrong in a good way.

(if you dont want to read my writing because the spelling , grammer is bad then dont and move on i dont come on the sift to write emaculate english.think of it this way, when manny people go swimming for recreatoin thay dont apreach it like an olimpic event thay just do what is required to have fun when swimming ,stay afloat.)


Mr westy, apologies for my disagreeable tone on previous comments, I had my reasons. However, what is posted is posted and I will leave it there.
Your state that a good point said in a bad way is better than vice versa is taken, however I contend that a good point said in a good way is even more effective.

You also state that not all recreational swimmers treat their pastime like and olympic event and that we all agree on I would say. HOWEVER, I fear your spelling to be a deliberate attempt at breaking with convention. That in itself points not to a relaxed attutide about rules, but your very own attempt to make some form of statement. In other words, your bad spelling is very clearly a highly deliberate attempt to make some unknown point by breaking with convention, not because you are a "recreational speller"

I have noticed a few other posts here question the necessity of your "inventive" spelling and a few pleading with you to cease this apparently moot endeavour. I fear that whatever your intentions are, they are being wasted.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on the purpose of this criminal spelling adverture you have embarked on, I for one would really appreciate the divulgence!

Thanks, I've been away for a week, and it didn't come up as a dupe.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
Dupe in the related videos - *discard

http://www.videosift.com/video/Cheeky-German-Swimmer-Wins-Gold

Dupe in the related videos - *discard

http://www.videosift.com/video/Cheeky-German-Swimmer-Wins-Gold

http://www.videosift.com/video/Cheeky-German-Swimmer-Wins-Gold

*discard

Dupe: http://www.videosift.com/video/Cheeky-German-Swimmer-Wins-Gold

*kill

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Shark, swimmer, sifted videos with speling mistaks in the title' to 'Shark, swimmer' - edited by doogle

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Shark, swimmer' to 'Shark, swimmer, sifted videos with speling mistaks in the title' - edited by doogle