Thanks for the promote! I thought it was a really great story too -- I've heard a few really positive and beautiful stories out of the tsunami, and they don't get enough attention.

In reply to this comment by kasinator:
*promote This is why I have a high respect for the Japanese. I hate to single out nations for stereotypes, but I honestly think japan's history and law encourages the mindsets of respect, honor, and putting others before yourself. The fisherman said he did this because his island would be isolated and in trouble if he did not. Moreover I am not a boat expert, but he likely had enough fuel and resources to high-tail his way away for the disaster zones and go his way from there. Instead he turns around and starts doing everything he can to help. Then I find out he wasn't the only hero here, the store own gives all his goods away for free to help others.

*promote This is why I have a high respect for the Japanese. I hate to single out nations for stereotypes, but I honestly think japan's history and law encourages the mindsets of respect, honor, and putting others before yourself. The fisherman said he did this because his island would be isolated and in trouble if he did not. Moreover I am not a boat expert, but he likely had enough fuel and resources to high-tail his way away for the disaster zones and go his way from there. Instead he turns around and starts doing everything he can to help. Then I find out he wasn't the only hero here, the store own gives all his goods away for free to help others.

"Find a 12 year old and have him regurgitate this" That wasn't my point I realize statistically there are not many people his age that learn this or could repeat it back thats not what im saying at all.


The point is if you are making a video describing how something works Its better to explain why things are why they are or you are doing nothing to help other people , you are accentually just showing of that u know something which was my point about this video in that it is a video of a kid showing of they know something which is utterly useless and exactly the same as a kid showing of they speek another language or can program well ( arguably skills that require the same amount of intellect) , its been known for a long time that some kids can do stuff that is often thought to complex for kids and only thought that adults can do it so there is not realy much of intrest of this video to the casual viewer.


"Furthermore, why are you admitting that you are so ignorant about math? That's not a good thing...it shouldn't be a nonchalant admission that somebody isn't even willing to try and understand the language of the universe"

Thats a moronic thing to say do you play the peano? speak multiple languages ? program in multiple languages? CAN YOU NOT PAINT PHOTO REAL IMAGES ? DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO DO CINEMATIC EFFECTS ? All those skills can potentaily be benoficail to society and help you understand the world better.

How is sumone saying that they are at a lower level of uinderstanding of something negative and how can you then interpret that as them saying math is of no use or that they dont think math is of use ? or that they are not willing to learn it ?

Granted i did write "I dont really know any math" This is not true what i meant was I don't know any of the math thats in this video and am at a very basic level of math. I am intrestead in math in general I am just stupendously dyslexic and find it ridiculously difficult to learn things such as some of the more basic aspects of math and find that all the books and teachers i have had have thought in a way thats not very compatible with my way of learning.

strangely i find it far easer to understand the more complex concepts of math its the Human computing element i struggle with Litraly am missing the component of the brain that can do that lol.

some of the things that got in the way of me learning math at school are rediculously simple , such as when typing numbers into a calculator i would forget what the last number i put in was , or typing in numbers back to front , or looking at the white board and then looking at what i was writing only to have to look back at the board , then u have the fact that i would write 10x slower than anyone else and would be forced to use a pencil. Another issue with math is that you are using the same symbols to describe different things sumone that is maximum dyslexic retarded ( well in my case annyway ) likes to have individual single meaning to each symbol and to be able to see everything as an image in one go not completely fragmented in component parts that make little sense.

I am quite happy to pootel along with a reasonably basic working knowlage of math and focus my time on things that come more naturally to me , I'm sure eventually i will come across a good teacher of math or sum-one that has developed a more visual way of learning traditionally non visual aspects of math and then I will have another poke at it.




>> ^rottenseed:

Find a 12 year old and have him regurgitate this. He explains the derivation of integration by parts which is a lot better than most the people I know. I mean when I learned integration by parts, it's not like I had to invent it, I really just had to learn it, and, for all intents and purposes, regurgitate it on the test. Now I know what integration by parts is, and I don't have to reinvent it every time I see it, I just know the skill, by memory...does that make me somebody that doesn't know maths? No.
Furthermore, why are you admitting that you are so ignorant about math? That's not a good thing...it shouldn't be a nonchalant admission that somebody isn't even willing to try and understand the language of the universe. Go back to your US weekly and check out the latest photos of Kim Kardashian, we'll call you when dinner's ready.>> ^westy:
Realy stupid video.
Might as well be a video of a kid that can program just talking as they code something , without explaining things. Or its like a multilingual kid speaking Spanish to English people.
I dont really know any math but it comes across in this video like he is simply regurgitating what would be fairly common or easy to understand math for sum-one that was doing that type of math and he dosent realy do a very good job at actualy exsplaning things other than saying THIS IS THIS BECAUSE THIS IS THIS, Which is fine really cnt expect kids to be good teachers i just dont get why his moron mother is filming it and uploading it on to the internet i guess its here way of gaining self worth.
In some ways i would rather have this than moron parents filming kids doing sports or other activities we could do with a more kids culturally encouraged to be into science.
I know this kid is well known for being good at science/math well beyond his age and i think he has aspergers so its good to encourage him and keep him focused on stuff so he dosent go into his shell. but he has not done annything utterly remarkable and it seems allot of people are embuing him as sumone that will change the world of science , maby he will but at this point in time and you should not put that presure on people or have that exspectation when they are developing as kids. futhar more from what i have read he still has a basic understanding of things that will need to be fleshed out before he can come up with ideas that are of use scentificaly and allot of the fame and promotion of this child is from midea making stuff up and hyping things out of propotion.
I hope he does well and benefits science and does what he enjoys but hope his character is not retardified by his parents or what the midea might do to him.

Like PHJF said, there is no perfect system. But that doesn't mean the process can't evolve and change, the problem is, we have to ALLOW it to change and evolve. We're WAY better off as a species than we were a 100 years ago because we MADE CHANGES and we need to be able to make changes if we're going to continue to improve.

Problem is, we have too many armchair generals and quarterbacks. None of us know all the facts, yet we all claim to be experts on how things should be done. Sad thing is, even those in charge don't always know the whole story either.

Biggest thing, IMO, we need to do is to give up our arrogance, the arrogance that says what works for you will work for everyone else. We need to stop policing the world and start taking care of our own. We can't help others if we can't help ourselves first. We also can't be afraid to try new things and constantly re-evaluate. We can't learn or grow otherwise.

@NetRunner, I have no desire to support them or fight for their right to exist, for three reasons. 1. I don't know enough about what's happening in Wisconsin and why. 2. In the end, I'd be supporting a group that uses legislation to support protectionism. 3. Their salary is paid by theft.

I just think you're almost universally focused on defending the right for people to resolutely and violently reject that moral duty to take care of others, rather than trying to persuade people to do more to live up to it.

Persuasion. It's interesting that you picked that word. I think your whole argument is determined by how you plan to "persuade" people to do or give more to help others. If it's by changing their minds peacefully and by creating persuasive arguments, then I can support that. If it's by forcing them to give under threat of violence (threat of police intervention, threat of imprisonment, etc.), then I'm afraid I will never support that.

You cannot legislate morality. Because your morality may not be my own, and coercing me into funding something I disagree with morally is universally evil.

>> ^blankfist:

"Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
– Ambrose Bierce

It seems to me that you should really turn the sharp end of that quote on yourself blankfist. You don't seem to realize that your own supposed principles should be viewed in that same cynical light.

Let's try to talk about sorting right and wrong, at its most basic level.

I'm basically a hedonist at heart. I say that morality is about maximizing pleasure, and minimizing suffering. Not all pleasures are created equal -- the base pleasures of the flesh rank below the more erudite appetites of the intellect, and those rank below the high pleasures to be found in helping others achieve greater heights of pleasure.

When it comes to designing social frameworks in which people coexist, I think we should try to maximize the net pleasure of all the people involved. I have been persuaded by history and philosophy that this requires a notion of inalienable human rights, and the use of a legal and political system to uphold those rights.

I have also been persuaded that market economies can be both economically efficient and while retaining a great deal of individual economic choice, so I'm willing to entertain including a legal definition of claims to inanimate objects known as "property". I think for a market to function, people must be allowed to purchase and sell property within it, and I think all people should have the right to participate in it, and enjoy the fruits that can be earned within it.

But I also think the overall economic scheme known as a market should be subservient to the overarching goal of maximizing pleasure for everyone in society, and not that society should be subservient to the rules of the market, regardless of its effect on the happiness of the people within it.

I also think that where markets run afoul of intrinsic human rights, like a person's ability to stay alive, or freely express themselves, markets must bend to the higher callings of these intrinsic human rights, rather than vice versa.

The bottom line is that morality can never become a license for me to ignore the effect of my actions on other people -- morality demands that I must always weigh the effects of my actions on everyone, everwhere, and ensure that I am always serving to maximize utility pleasure for society as a whole.

@dystopianfuturetoday

From Wikipedia: Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses "the moral worth of the individual". Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so independence and self-reliance while opposing most external interference upon one's own interests, whether by society, family or any other group or institution.

This is not the philosophy of Hitler, Stalin, or Manson. They were people who wanted control over others, while Individualists believe that everyone should have control over themselves. They are polar opposites, in terms of philosophy. And while it might make for a good joke ("Individualists unite!") there is nothing ironic about people sharing a philosophy of self-reliance.

In terms of selfishness, I believe you are misinterpreting her message. Though I may be wrong, I interpret it to mean "Take care of yourself first, then take care of your loved ones, then help your community if you have the means." Like they say in pre-flight safety instructions, put on your own oxygen mask first, then help others to put on theirs. You aren't doing anyone any good if you give everything you have to others (money, energy, or time). You will just find yourself wiped out and then depending on others to give to you. But if you fulfill your own needs and find you have resources to spare, then you can assist others in finding their own self-sufficiency. Indeed, if you value your family and community, helping them to be prosperous is by definition serving your own self-interests.

Again, I may be projecting some of my own morality onto Rand, because I have never seen her articulate this point clearly. But that is what I would argue on the topic of selfishness.

Personally, I am not a Rand devotee. I think anyone trying to implement her ideas literally would cause chaos and mob-rule. But she made some interesting points, and though her utopia may not be possible, there are valuable lessons to be learned in her books if you look for them.

For a writer, she really did a terrible job of expressing her ideas sometimes.

For instance, how hard is it to say "In order be of most help to others, one must first take care of one's self." This takes all the steam out of the "selfishness" and "me decade" arguments.

However, she did a great job of explaining the difference between personal values and sacrifice. That is something I entirely support.

These two concepts can also be combined. It is entirely possible to find great personal value in service to others. As long as a person is clear on their values, there is no reason to avoid helping others. As long as you are not spending all your time volunteering at the soup kitchen while your own family starves, there is no conflict here.

Ahem, well...

Will we all die? Yes of course.
Do we know when it will happen? Very few do.
Does anyone truly know what happens when you die? Certainly not.
Is there anything that we can do to influence what happens after we die. Religious people seem to think so and worry about it incessantly. Atheists feel that we cannot and as a result tend not to worry about it.

From what I can see there are essentially two ways to view the subject, theistically or philosophically.
Theists will say that what we do before death determines what happens to us after death. I see this as the more selfish perspective on life. "Help other people and save yourself."

As for the philosophical view point...

"Death, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, since when we are, death is absent, and, when death is present, we are not any more. It is nothing, then, either to the living or to the dead."
- Epicurus, 341-270

My advice: Stop worrying about what happens after you die and instead focus on the life that you have to live. Live it to the fullest and positively influence the world around you while you are here. Help others not for your own salvation but rather only for the sake of the act of kindness itself and the effect that it will have on others. Your true immortality will come from the legacy that you leave behind when you are gone.

>> ^Gallowflak:

Anyone who honestly doesn't care about death, or who isn't disturbed by the idea of their own intelligence and consciousness being permanently destroyed is either A: not aware of what that actually means, or B: alien enough to me that our differences are completely irreconcilable.

I'm so glad I was able to provide a warm fuzzy for someone in need, thank you for the note!>> ^jan:
Thank you, I've sent that to a friend in need it may make her laugh. The sift helps me help others.

Thank you, I've sent that to a friend in need it may make her laugh. The sift helps me help others.

>> ^quantumushroom:

SOMEONE has to be an adult who understands there are finite resources to address infinite suffering.

Agreed, so why are you advocating having more of our finite resources diverted away from alleviating suffering?

>> ^quantumushroom:
If I put a gun to your head to make you "volunteer" to help others, or take your wallet for the same purpose, how is that anything but wrong?

Easy, if you want to be a citizen of this country, you agree to a social contract, part of which means paying your taxes. There isn't a clause in the contract that says every dime of taxes you pay has to be returned to you individually via goods and services. In fact, there's a lot of talk in there about "general welfare".

>> ^quantumushroom:
This is a hard lesson for liberals, but in life there are no solutions, only trade-offs..


Actually, all liberals would agree with that. We think it's an awesome trade off if we eliminate the payroll tax cap, in order to make sure people of all incomes keep getting social security. We also think it's a good trade off to raise taxes on the wealthy to keep food stamps going to those who need them (and if you have ideas to improve the way in which we ensure only the needy get them, we're all ears!).

It's conservatives who think the universal solution to everything is tax cuts and deregulation. Education? Fully privatize it and cut taxes, and it'll get better in every way imaginable. Health care crisis? Cut taxes, deregulate the insurance companies, and eliminate Medicare and it'll fix itself. Global warming? Not real, but even if it is real, cut taxes, deregulate, and the free market will take care of it. Racism? Well, just uphold everyone's right to discriminate in the work place, and it'll go away on its own. Unemployment? Just eliminate unemployment benefits and the minimum wage, and we'll have full employment. Povety? Not my problem.

SOMEONE has to be an adult who understands there are finite resources to address infinite suffering.

If I put a gun to your head to make you "volunteer" to help others, or take your wallet for the same purpose, how is that anything but wrong?

This is a hard lesson for liberals, but in life there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Stop taxing to death the 50% of Americans that actually pay taxes. A billion dollars in the hands of the people who earned it goes a lot farther than urinating it away.

Religion certainly has its good points (charity, helping others) and bad points (manipulation of followers, excessive trust in the views of authority figures). There are also many things, both good and bad, that are often mistakenly attributed to religion (like morality or stupidity).

Personally, I'm all for helping others and striving to be a good person, but I am very uncomfortable with any belief structure that promotes the existence of people or things that cannot be observed or tested. When people are convinced that their views and beliefs should not require reproducible evidence then they can be more easily manipulated by those they trust by "faith".

I know of a few religious people who accept all of science, but still believe in particular events beyond death. I do not believe those after-life views are founded in anything other than a personal desire for it to be true, but at least they aren't rejecting conclusions tested by many based on the writings of a few.

I do think a world where religion isn't needed would be a better place, but if it happened now it still wouldn't keep people from believing all kinds of crazy stuff. I see religion as more of an effect of human ignorance than the direct cause of it.

>> ^maximillian:

I disagree. Saved Christians are compelled to help as a result of their salvation. Before my salvation I helped people because I wanted to hear people's praises of how good I am. Now I do it because of the love of the Lord. There is a difference because the later is a selfish sacrifice whereas the former is vanity. This selfish attitude is the fruit of a true Christian. Not saying non-Christians don't behave this way. However when faced with adversity and other hardships people's motivations are tested. If I only had earthly motivations then I would falter.


Your personal justifications are no deal maker; people will help others out of empathy, vanity, expectance of reciprocity, etc., with or without religion. All religion does is have an authority figure tell you you must be a certain way otherwise you will be tortured forever and not go to an imaginary wonderful place.

The same results of "salvation" as you call it can be found by reading philosophy and/or working on one's ethics and self esteem; no need to have "faith" or believe in the supernatural for any of that.