Considering your two death threats against me and this comment, a pattern is starting to emerge. You clearly have some deep seated issues. You need to repent of this wickedness and ask God to heal you. Youre headed towards a fall with your faulty conscience, so you had best get right with God now, before it is too late to avoid it and you act on one of your impulses.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Wow, I can see what they are talking about...he is really charismatic. Him talking about all the evil he did, and for some reason, it was hard to hate him...amazing.

Oh I could still kick him violently in the back of the head and feel NOTHING. I wouldn't feel anything I would just go "Oh look he's dead...whatever" and walk on.

This is the second time you have voiced death threats against me, which is nothing other than proof that you have a heart filled with poison. Whatever you wish to say about this issue, it is all empty rhetoric in light of your obvious moral bankruptcy. You need to repent and get right with God.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
My question is, if gays are born that way, what about pedophiles? Aren't they just victims of their genetics and the behavior is irreversable? If a man can marry another man, why not his horse? Why not his car? Once you open these doors, you can never close them.

Ok I'll answer your completely offensive questions. If Pedophiles are born that way does it make it ok? No it doesn't because when you're fucking children you're hurting them, some would argue destroying them. Two consenting gay adults is not the same as that, logically not just morally.
Second, the proposal is two individuals can marry eachother and share custody of children or have an economic relationship. So what is wrong with saying two consenting adults? A horse is not a person a car is not a person.
There I have been respectful and logical...Now let me pass on some advice from someone who fights for this country and your freedom.
"If I find you I will kill you and take much pleasure in it you sick mother fucker."
Just passing that along.

If multiple people attack me I'm going to grab a weapon. Once said weapon is involved in the fight I know that said weapon can be used against me. So when I use the weapon against my assailants I'm going to be sure they cannot get back up and use the weapon against me.

I've seen enough of "Humanity" to know that most people if they see ME getting MY ASS kicked won't do anything. So I better be prepared to defend myself. You all know this because you are on the same website as I am. How many videos do we see where people are being assaulted left on the street bleeding/seizing/whatever and nobody calls the cops?

Okay so you'd rather be in THAT situation where you're getting your ass beaten and everyone around you is watching? Allow yourself to be murderlized by some assholes because you thought they were going to stay down but then they got back up and they had a knife or some other weapon or managed to over power you with sheer numbers. Personally I'd rather go to jail for beating the shit out of 2 people with a metal pipe then end up paralyzed or dead because I was concerned about what "Everyone else" would think about my actions.

If being desensitized to violence makes me an "e-thug" or some sort of "racist" then I'm proud to be adorned with those labels. Because it would have enabled me to have the courage to walk up to the pipe wielding person and say "Please stop hitting them" in a calm and RATIONAL tone rather than SCREAMING at someone whose already fueled with Adrenaline and in "Fight for Flight" mode which will only make things worse and makes you perceived as a threat.

Calmly disabling someone who is only trying to defend themselves is the only solution to this problem aside from calling 911. Screaming constantly does nothing but agitate the situation and make it worse.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
It was nice of DFT to sit in the empty theater you rented, watching your student-caliber film projected off a laptop, but that doesn't entitle him to be such a sanctimonious asshole.

I'm glad you decided to make it personal. Thanks for the personal attacks.
The truth is of course that you wanted to score that "student-caliber film". But I listened to your scoring samples. They were okay, but not great. So I passed. This must've set you right the hell off, because ever since you've been a bit of a prick to me. No hard feelings, DFT. Be a smart guy right now and drop it. I'm sure you don't want to make this any more personal than you already have. I can do far worse.

You talk about personal attacks--then threaten dft?
You certainly have learned self awareness.
"Don't make this personal--or I'll personally come after you."
Here's a little advice--I know you won't take advice from a lowly person such as myself, but I'll try anyway--back away from the computer.
Give it a couple of days--come back and apologize to @DerHasisttot. Leave dft and everyone else alone. I guarantee if you follow this advice you will benefit.
We disagree on many things, but I enjoy your videos and many things you say make me think about my own preconceptions. I like that you are here.
You like it here; don't trash it.


This is the bias I'm talking about. Did you read his quoted comment with rose colored glasses? And where's the threat? I want him to stop making personal attacks against me over my film. He's an artist and should know better. Just because you side with him ideologically doesn't mean he's right.

I could say some really mean things, but I've held back. Because although our friendship is irreparable, I still think he's a genuine guy personally. A good man generally. Sweet in person. But we're both letting our ideological differences make us enemies online. And that's maybe how it should be.

>> ^criticalthud:

look, let's say i suspect my neighbor down the street is a terrorist, and i'm real real sure he is, cause he sure looks like one...and i'm fairly certain he is plotting against me. And under the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, continued and enhanced under Obama, I should be justified in planting a 45 caliber bullet in his forehead. right?
or maybe that is ridiculous.
and maybe it's ridiculous that we think it's just peachy to hopscotch around the world, blowing up people who disagree with our policies.


You may need your eyes checked. Here are the two 'suspects' you are comparing:

1.Neighbor that looks suspicious, they maybe even wear a turban.
2.Man who's written multiple books and essays on how and why to wage Jihad against America on it's own streets. A man who we have phone records for his mentoring of a person that shot and killed multiple Americans on American soil.

Do those two look the same or remotely comparable to you? There's no question the precedent is troublesome, but you don't think your example is a touch.... extreme?

and look, let's say i suspect my neighbor down the street is a terrorist, and i'm real real sure he is, cause he sure looks like one...and i'm fairly certain he is plotting against me...cause he keeps mumbling weird shit and motioning in my direction. I don't know, but this dude don't like me. could be my music taste. anyway, luckily, under the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, continued and enhanced under Obama, I should be justified in preemptively planting a 45 caliber bullet in his forehead. right?

or maybe that is ridiculous.
and maybe it's ridiculous that we think it's just peachy to hopscotch around the world, blowing up people who disagree with our policies.

@chilaxe

You're looking at this through an emotional and political lens, not an ethical one. Let's not revert to the Bush "either with me or against me" mentality.

Feynman got to play god and help to mass murder people. No matter what the justification, such brashness bothers me. Maybe these gods among men will one day decide I and my family can be justifiably murdered in order to 'save the world'.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^bcglorf:

And meanwhile you lament the loss of monsters like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad. Well done.

Do you have a citation for that claim?
Meanwhile 1.5 million dead civilians in Iraq, untold thousands of dead civilians from drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, hundreds of innocents locked up and tortured at secret prisons all over the world, terror bombings in North Africa, yeah... you've got the moral high-ground here.

And your problem is you hold Saddam guiltless for the Iraqi dead. You hold the Taliban and Al Qaeda guiltless for the Afghan and Pakistani dead. You hold Al Shabab guiltless for the Somali dead. You hold Gaddafi guiltless for the Libyan dead.
What kind of twisted world view do you have were you reject the evidence for the above, but fully and enthusiastically embrace the guilt of those fighting against Saddam, Gaddafi, the Taliban, Al Qaeada and Al Shabab?


Fuck you. That's 3 times now in this thread you've made the same baseless accusations against me. Fuck you. You want to ignore the world wide terrorism and murder that you support, so be it.

Using your standard, we should be invading/bombing China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and half of the world. And to go further, China, Russia, and whoever else should be invading/bombing the US trying to install the type of government they think we should have.

What kind of "twisted world view" is that?

@NetRunner

You said,
"And with the miscarriage thing, honestly, now you really are just making straw man attacks. He's not saying mothers can't be upset if they lose unborn children, he's saying it's none of anyone else's business if she decides she wants to lose it..."

NO! I won't let you intellectualize what he said into something different. I won't let it be justified with words that don't apply. How can a bunch of cells, as he classifies the not-yet born, be a child??? That is saying that the unborn "child" is not a child at all! You add the term "child" but he distinctly says it's not a child. To him it is simply cells that have the ability to one day be a child. That's fine, but accept what that means.


And that brings up my point; either a woman is batshit crazy when she loses her cells (Like a woman crying every time she uses hand soap,) or it is a child she lost... And see Net, the problem is it now becomes an issue that you cannot defend, it is now a sexuality issue, an equality issue, and that's where you are not able to intellectualize.

You know why he won't say they're children? Because then he has to admit that the right have some sense in what they say. Instead, he now get's to have his cake and eat it too. "It's not a child except when the body itself aborts it...then women can be upset...even if I only called it a group of cells."

At least you have the balls to call it a child...

And speaking of cults--what about his own cult? If I called a woman a cunt, any woman, his supporters would be foaming at the mouth against me. But he waves his magical amazing-wand around and the supporters say its fine to use the word CUNT in certain occasions. But not for anyone else besides him...

(For the record, a lot of people didn't like his use of the word CUNT. Also for the record, his cultists didn't mind.)

You know it's funny--when I argue with highly intellectual individuals I always use "straw-man attacks" or am "wrong." In fact, as of today, I have never once noted something worthwhile that contrasted an intellectual's opinion. From now on when I hear the term straw-man I am just going to just assume there is no response and that the straw-man argument is itself a straw-man argument/attack.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Second, Ron Paul disagrees with the Tea Party on many more issues than you note, and many issues you would SUPPORT. Drugs and the lack of "war" on them, war itself, debt (Yes, he disagrees on debt. The Tea Party says we should destroy Medicade and medicare, and social security, Ron Paul says that is not possible 'right now' but he would privatize it to only those who wish it. See if the Tea Party agrees with him..."
Let'see, as you said, gay marriage...that's four huge issues right there...habeas corpus... another huge one that Bush disregarded; that the Tea Party would like to see fucked..sorry for the language... five...abortion...let the states handle it (I.e., legalize it for most states...) six...what else?
Besides these SIX HUGE ISSUES, I DON'T know...

Ahh, but here's where the rubber meets the road -- I don't really believe him about most of those.

Would Paul actually try to lead an effort to legalize gay marriage? An effort that would almost certainly divide the Republican party, or possibly even unite them against him?

I don't really believe Paul on Social Security and Medicare. Here's why.

I'm not sure what you mean by Paul "disagreeing" on debt. Paul was against raising the debt ceiling, and even sent out whip e-mail to ask people to call their congressman to tell them to vote against the deal that passed.

I don't believe him on abortion, and in any case "let the states handle it" is not my position, nor is it current law. It should be safe and legal everywhere, and supposedly that's how it is today.

I suppose I could see him relaxing enforcement of drug laws, so I'll grant you that. Thing is, I don't know how well he'd do in persuading congress to actually change the drug laws, or change popular opinion on legalizing serious narcotics like heroin.

Here's the thing though, my big three issues going into 2008 were the wars (and associated civil rights issues), health care, and the environment. Paul was with me on one, and radically against me on the other two.

If I had to pick my three core issues this time, I mostly want to see more stimulus, see the Bush tax cuts expire, and a passionate defense of union rights. Paul is vehemently opposed to all of those.

The long and the short of it is, there's nothing that I think Paul could deliver that would be worth all the damage he'd definitely inflict to countless things that I care about.

I'd rather vote for some random Green or Socialist candidate than vote for Paul. But moreover, I'd rather put what little weight I have behind Obama, because it's basically going to be him, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, or Mitt Romney who's gonna be President.

Now, if we had instant runoff voting, I could easily be persuaded to put a Green as my first choice...

"Remember kids, when peddling BS, be wise and safe about it!"

Seriously though, this man of all people should know he's spouting bs. "No one ever spoke that way", eh? Siddhārtha Gautama is from India, Ravi, and one of the only ways in which his message does not anticipate that of Jesus is the lack of all that hellfire, eternal damnation and "you're either with me or against me" crap that Jesus introduced (and I won't mention all the Greek philosophers whose ideas were far more sophisticated than the carpenter's).

Sorry Ravi, but the Jeebs character, like all good tyrants, has two sides to his message: the stick and the carrot. Apologists today have simply put the stick behind their backs, now that centuries of beating humanity with it have borne its fruits.

>> ^marbles:

Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority.

This is your premise, it is also your conclusion. You have failed to demonstrate it at all. You have not made an argument. You have simply made a flurry of self contradicting statements, and insisted that they are true, and that any counter argument is false by definition. Do you really expect anybody to take you seriously?

>> ^marbles:

I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.


Marx advocated only the abolition of capital, not of workers rights to what they produce, he believed that capitalism had already destroyed that right:

>> ^Karl_Marx:

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing
the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a
man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork
of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the
property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of
property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to
abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent
already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.


>> ^marbles:

the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.
So where does production come from again?



To restate: where does the producing of articles having exchange value. come from

Lets see, how many ways can I interpret this?

1) Where do produced items come from : They are made of other things + energy, conservation of M/E
2) Where does the idea of production come from : The social contract of market societies
3) Where does the exchange value of objects come from : Somewhat arbitrary cultural valuation
4) ??? : what you secretly mean probably goes here, how about cluing us in?

>> ^marbles:

I did just clearly demonstrate it.

Where?

>> ^marbles:

Care to prove it false?

State your case and I'll give it a whirl.

>> ^marbles:
Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?

Because the logical consistency of your ideology depends on the ability to bootstrap a property system with the ownership (as in what they word usually means) of self. Dispensing with that when it gets inconvenient makes the whole thing fall apart.

Without actual self ownership, you have no logically necessary ownership claim to the value produced by self, and so you can not build you system on property only. You must start adding more first principles in order to get there. If libertarians have been purposely obfuscating their ideology as you claim, then they have been hiding the weakness in their argument, and making a false case.

I take most libertarians at there word that they actually meant what they said. Your position now significantly diverges from that put forth in the video, and requires you to make a different argument to bootstrap your personal libertarian-derived view.

What new first principle are you introducing to bootstrap ownership from only figurative ownership of self?

>> ^marbles:

I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract?

You used its existence as an argument. You want to back peddle and say you didn't mean it? Then do so.

>> ^marbles:

I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.

And then, as an example, argued that I was wrong because what I suggested would not work in my property arrangement, read the transcript.

>> ^marbles:

And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?

possession ≠ fee-simple

Possession is fact, who has current physical control of a thing is not an issue for philosophy, but only of physicality. If I hold a pen in my hand I possess it, irrespective of any ownership claims on the pen. To take the pen from me without my consent requires the initiation of actual physical force against me, based on the physics.

If you own the pen, I don't have to interact with you in any way to use it, or take it home with me. There is no way to know if you own the pen, or if anybody does.

There is no demonstrable physical consequence of fee-simple property, possession, on the other hand in a matter of facts. My acceptance of both the fact and historical relevance of possession, does not get you within miles of fee-simple.

@bareboards2

The Jeebs character definitely made some interesting points about love, compassion and charity (it is suggested he got some of these from Buddhism), and ideas of social reform that could almost qualify him as proto-socialist. But the view of all-good all-loving Jeebs that moderate Christians are raised with today is a relatively recent phenomenon, with its roots in the deistic revisions of the Bible and Christian doctrine that began with the Enlightenment.

Having been raised in an evangelical cult, I know the Bible quite well, and can assure you that Jeebs is not all good. For one, the invention of eternal torture and hell is his invention (cf self-quote below); some of his parables are terribly authoritarian (e.g. Lk 19:11-27); he is divisive ("you're either with me or against me","I come not to bring peace but a sword", etc...) and even his treatment of women comes off as condescending at times, albeit much better than the patriarchal misogyny of the OT and St Paul (one example: he doesn't allow Mary to touch him after resurrecting, but allows Thomas (Jn 20:17-27).

I understand the urge to see Jeebs in a purely positive light though, heck, even my favourite poet (Percy Shelley), an avowed atheist and antitheist, tried to project Jesus in his (Shelley's) own image, i.e. as a humanist social reformer.

>> ^hpqp:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/smooman" title="member since October 28th, 2008" class="profilelink">smooman (quoting doesn't work)
Eternal damnation and hellfire are inventions of the character of Jesus (some of the more explicit examples: Mt. 10:28, Mt. 25:41, Mt. 25:46, Mk 9:47-48, Lk 10:15, Lk. 12:5, etc., not counting all the parables where "bad fruit/branches" are cast into "unquenchable fire").
One main point of departure between Christianity and Judaism is hell.
Some good online tools for Bible "study":
http://www.biblegateway.com/
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

That would solve a lot of religious hatred. But most people in turbans and those thumping bibles wouldn't be as grownup as you.

>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^blankfist:
I was raised not to hit women. In my core I think it's wrong, though I think it's a terribly biased and arcane belief. Once in high school during a breakup my ex-girlfriend started wailing on me and trying desperately to kick me in the nuts. I wanted to defend myself, but felt I couldn't outside trying to catch her arms before they hit me.
I think in the deep recesses of my mind, I watch this and feel some sense of perverted justice for all the times a girl was violent against me and I felt I couldn't retaliate.
Also, how many times has a woman put your ass in danger by mouthing off to some dude? And all of a sudden you have to fight to defend her honor or some crazy archaic primal bullshit like that.

I was raised the same way, but whenever something like that happened to me, I found the best possible way to resolve the situation (And I actually mean this in all seriousness)
Was a hug.
After a few seconds of taking a hit or two, I'd grab an arm, spin them so their back was to me and hold their arms in a "Hug" type of stance.
It was almost an instant de-escalator. They're either forced to talk about why they were taking swings at me in the first place, or too embarrassed to keep going because they got beat by a hug.
In this situation mind you, I don't think the hug would go so well.

I don't hate burdturgler. He lied to dag--he can't even read private profile messages without immense trouble and did no fact checking--and told him I was sending him private profile messages when I never did and that got me hobbled. I should dislike him for that and I do a bit. I don't like lying. It's not conducive to anything. I should dislike him for his blatant double standard as it applies to the word nigger. nigger.videosift.com, etc, he says nigger more than anyone I've ever seen on this site. Insulting me on my profile for insulting another person on their profile when he called a Siftquisition against me for that very thing? It's a daisy chain of hypocrisy. I don't rejoice in the fact that he left again because it leaves no recourse or closure. I'm certain he'll come back just to leave again. Volatile people are volatile.

And being female has no bearing on what language or words a person chooses. bareboards2 chose to put herself out there and invite attention. Her vagina has nothing to do with how I dislike her personality. She's manipulative, attention-starved and annoying in her dogged persistence and demands for answers, @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@.

blankfist accused bareboards2 of banning a bunch of people? What? I don't know why that's what you take away from this and if you'd like to, perhaps clarify that statement or at least cite what you're referring to?

>> ^Issykitty:

I wouldn't call blankfist's telling MrFisk to go suck a dick, and calling him a sanctimonious asshole, and calling Netrunner an idiot a "dialogue," especially when blankfist has accused bareboards of having a bunch of people banned when that wasn't the case. Because she is female and doesn't resort to that kind of language, is that why you target her as a punching bag? I really would like to know. Also, Seems just a tad out of line, destructive and pointless. This is me clarifying my fake discard invocation. Honestly, I would if it were my blog. This is a fucking load of shit. I think this is more about how much we all know you hate burdturgler. Can't you just rejoice in the fact that he left again?