It's the panty-knotted cunts that piss us off the MOST! Self-important, self-indulgent, my-shit-never-stinks gimps.... "On the contrary, it smells like flowers and here's my circular, Socratic polemic to explain just how fucked you are compared to me."

Get a fucking room. Oh wait, you have one here!

FUCK YOU!

Only retarded white people (and perhaps a few uptight Canadians) have a problem with the word Negro, and they invented it!

you do realize that anarchism is incredibly diverse right?
it is not some rigid dogmatic approach to structural societies.
the political philosophy can stem from a strict individualism to a pure collectivism,yet both can be an anarchist philosophy.

i will post some lectures that can clarify our discussion much more competently than i ever could.

because it seems we are getting snagged on definitions.
i use the classic definitions and you retort with the "americanized" and no matter how many words we type to each other...if we are not on the same page in regards to the most basic of agreements, "definitions", then we will always be in the weird loop-d-loop of circular reasoning.

we will probably still disagree but at least we will understand each other better.

@bobknight33
cognitive dissonance+circular logic=your comment

you state its all the governments fault.
you give an example of massive amounts of "aid"

care to clarify that position?

because i actually agree with you but i suspect it is for different reasons.

when we look at government subsidies (welfare/aid),the largest recipient by far is american corporations.we even subsidize CEO pay,not to mention subsidizing their slave wage work force.

so can you tell me who the TRUE welfare queens are?

and did you just equate our government and its corporate socialism to being "kind,nice and trying to do the right thing"?
and that somehow this government altruism is bad for capitalism?

seriously?

it wouldnt happen to have anything to do with the army of corporate lobbyists that stampede congress/senate and the judiciary now would it?

all with their hands out.looking for some tasty welfare.

noooooooo...corporations are GOOD for the economy!
they are the "job creators" (like wall mart) and all that extra profit will rain down upon us common folk like mana from heaven.

here is how our current system plays out:
socialism for the rich.
capitalism for the poor.

we dont have capitalism.
our government is bought.
they no longer work for you,nor me.we have become irrelevant.

capitalism.
sounds like a great system.
we should try it sometime.

Seems somewhat circular.

There isn't a scarcity of resources! Its because war!
Why war?
A scarcity of resources!

You sir clearly do not fully understand the nature of entropy (and nor does about 95% of the human race so you can be forgiven there).

You have however stumbled into making a genuinely worthwhile point here (though I must state I think for completely the wrong reasons).

The idea that the universe inevitably moves towards a complete "heat death" is I think incorrect, it fails to account for the effect of ever increasing complexity within the closed systems the universe produces (i.e. evolution which applies as much cosmically as it does to organic life on earth).

If the universe remained with no more complexity than it currently has then yes everything would eventually "burn out" and spread the energy of the universe so thinly that everything would cease to work (if only on a space-time level).

But the nature of the universe does not remain static, it creates ever more complex and actuated systems dialectically. Energies>Particles>Compounds>Nebulae>Stars>Planets>Organisms>Unconsciousness>Consciousness>???>God! (not intended to be an exhaustive list it's purely for illustration)

Evolution does trump entropy IMHO but this is largely because the actual laws of entropy are crazy complicated to understand and most people (including to some extent myself) don;t fully understand the subtleties of how it really works.

If nothing else; to say that the whole universe eventually enters a state of complete entropy assumes that every complex closed system that does or ever will exist will eventually break down. This is far from a forgone conclusion, we alone as evolving conscious creatures are capable of developing means to circumvent or even prevent this. Let alone what other wonders we have yet to observe or the universe has yet to manifest!

In conclusion: The Universe evolves until it reaches God (or dies trying ). God does not then create the universe but rather commits suicide (what else is God to do? Eternity is a very long time for someone that already knows and has done everything...). Process repeats ad infinitum.


Makes a lot more sense that way around don't you think? (and no ancient books of dubious origin need ever be consulted to derive it either)

Saying God created the universe only leaves you with more questions which by their very nature cannot be answered. We would have to be God itself to ever answer them, so we are left with a judgement call. No logical certainty, only faith.

This way around we can by pure rationalism and empiricism arrive at an explanation of how the universe might evolve God via ever increasing complexity of consciousness and actualisation (true post-humans alone would be like demi-gods, it's not a huge leap to keep taking this idea further)

Further to that Ontological mathematics (that is to say "really real mathematics") can assess a framework to understand how the universe itself came to be (we can arguably go pre-big bang with this but that's always going to be a controversial idea here).

^ Now I might be wrong about some or even all of that but it is at least a reductive argument. Using God as an explanation for anything without first explaining God is always going to be a circular argument. If your going to use circular logic you can prove basically anything you feel like!

"God is dead!"

@artician
im gonna have to disagree with you.

the comparisons this film makes with rome are a tool to illuminate the structure of empire itself.
at romes true beginning to romes ultimate fading were longer than 250 years.
you are correct.
you are also correct of the existence of a 2000 year long empire.
which of course was the egyptian empire.

what you DID not post was that the waning years of the rome empire was concentrated in constantinople and was called the byzantine empire.you further weaken your argument by not pointing out that the egyptian empire was not one long single stretch of domination but rather a series of rises and falls of that empire.

now,by your own argument you have failed your own propaganda test.

this film makes an argument.
you can agree/disagree with its conclusions.
but to dismantle the delivery of that argument based on circular logic drowns out the argument itself.

this is a criticism of our current system.
a valid criticism in my opinion and i didnt find it delving into boogah boogah land.
it was rational,reasonable and possibly a bit too heavy on the power point presentation.

but considering i had read most of the books by the authors being interviewed (the "sources" you claim were lacking),i found it a fantastic movie for people who may not be aware of whats going on.

not everybody has the time or patience to consume information the way you or i do.
and i rather liked how this film lays out our current situation.

i guess you didnt.
fair enough.

@Babymech

ok.let us examine your counterpoints.

1.yeah.i agree.i never saw him as anybody but roddy piper.
2.agreed.while long,it does wear the banner of awesome.zizek may possibly be guilty of over-analyzing,but his comparisons bear some consideration.i find them to be justified.
3.this point you make is an exercise in circular logic and actually makes zizecks point.
where do you get your ideology from?
do you even have an ideology?
what makes you so certain of your ideology?
it is the question that is the real truth.
4.dont really understand your outrage here.sarcasm?
zizeck is exercising the pedagogy of philosophy.
referencing the matrix and pointing out that the wachowski brothers were not the first ones to create a movie with heavy philosophical tones.
john carpenter did it in the 80's with "they live".
and the philosophy of both movies is not exactly new.unless you consider 150 years to be "new".

maybe you disagree with the questions?
or are uncomfortable with the answers?
seem awfully defensive about people asking questions.

He is right -- you need innovation to create things and then competition to bring prices down, but then arrives at some strange conclusions and inconsistencies. (All the while sounding like he is on crack.)

He makes a case for government giving money to entrepreneurs. Isn't that the "partnership system" that we have now? The mix of giving "public" money to "private" entrepreneurs?

His "solutions" require omniscient central planning to know who to give money to.

It's kind of sad the level of audience he is addressing his ideas to.
MTV meets pop-econ.

Basically he is advocating, like in the other video, a form of crony capitalism here. And the "problem" is that we don't have enough of it. So we should be giving more money to cronies because it doesn't matter if their "pizzas" get bigger, their "success" will "trickle down" to the rest of us and everyone will have a bigger pizza even if it's nowhere near as big as that of the wealthy entrepreneurs. A dog chasing its tail.

It's a weird sort of crony capitalism, though, because you give money to everyone and then one or two of those will build successful businesses and employ everyone else who didn't do as much with the money that was given to them. That's a kind of circular and it's not realistic to think that a couple of entrepreneurs will make up for all the money "given" to everyone else, and the resulting inflation and the myriad of problems therein.

I think he is trying to appeal to both left and right wingers, but it seems rather incoherent, a fact he may be trying to disguise with the fast pace and choppy editing, i.e., a video version of "fast-tlking" (i.e., swindling) to prevent any real and careful analysis of what he says.

I think there's more useful information in the videos this guy produces, but alas, they're not as "zany" as these...

Fucking amazing, wheres my circular saw!

Made me smile when Sinatra used to claim that he could circular breathe whilst singing. Ask any singer, it is, literally, impossible.

Who cares?

It becomes a circular problem. It you let anyone cut in then the line itself becomes redundant and the cut in line becomes the new line. Such special considerations can only operate on the basis that they are few and far between. Clearly these hucksters were not already at DL and were helping people out. They pimped out their services external to the venue. Freedman would not be proud for it isn't a sustainable system and economic Darwinism doesn't apply here.

Clearly it undermines the special status given to people with disabilities and risks the future tenability of such considerations.

Yummy, arguing on the internet!
I haven't done this in years, I'm gonna throw my hat in the Ring now.
I spent countless hours here for years, just enjoying the show. Staying out of all this, in the end at least, unimportant chatter. I came for the videos. Then somebody starts singing about sluts and I end up with an account. What can I say? I like sluts.
I spent much time reading and skipping over the posts of @shinyblurry here. And I still wonder why people feel the need to argue with him in such detail and length. He talks a lot about his faith in God and Jesus but what it come down to is this: He believes in The Bible.
The Bible features God and Jesus and all that but most important of all, it features a heckload of arguments for all kinds of things that are often in direct conflict.
Earlier in this thread, somebody threw a Bible quote about how rape victims have to marry their rapist in @shinyblurry's face and he actually started to explain (correct me if I misunderstood) how it's a punishment for the rapist that he has to pay money and marry the woman if the father chooses that.
I have money to burn. Is Jessica Alba married and where does her dad live? She's super hot and I *need* that kind of punishment. God wants her to fulfill her marital duties, right? If she's not available, I could make a list.
Now, I could argue this IMO rather distasteful idea with him, quoting the Bible back and forth, using other philosophical sources for arguments (I'm sure Hitchens mentioned rape somewhere sometime) but all that doesn't matter.
He believes in The Bible.
If I went back in time and edited early versions to my liking to include gems like "Every man shall also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed no abomination: they shall surely be praised", old shiny here would organize gay pride parades now. Because it's in the book. Whatever is in there, it's the truth. Whatever.
It's the same reason why creationist (I have no idea if old shiny is among them) can not accept evolution. It's not in the book.
They believe in this powerful, omnipotent god, not just in I-can-command-all-sea-animals-god. No, not that Aquaman shit the Greeks had, I'm talking about I-invented-the-universe-god. Get this, this guy did *invent* the universe. And still it was all some Siegfried and Roy BS we *know* to be nonsense. 7 days? Really? Was he in a hurry? Couldn't he wait until we get to the Game of Thrones and Tivo part of History? Was there another Earth to take care of? Contract work?
The idea to credit that dude for creating Evolution itself is too much to ask for these people. The idea that God created a giant machine (the universe) and allowed it to feature other tiny, tiny machines that repair, reproduce and improve themselves (life itself; evolution), is too mindblowing.
Who's more awesome in your book? The god that can do magic or the god who could do magic but opted for inventing everything science has discovered so far?
You know, science failed to disprove the existence of god. They can't do that yet. But they can disprove The Bible, at least parts. And yet, they still side with that darn book.
They don't care about God, the don't even care about Jesus. They care about what they read about them. They care about their perception of it.
Telling @shinyblurry that Jesus was a little, brown, jewish Hippie who got mixed up with existing mythology is like telling a fourteen year old that Ed Cullen is, by his own admission, a creepy murderer who stalks underage girls 80 years his junior. They don't want to hear it because that is not what the book said. They book didn't say that god created the natural laws of physics, chemistry and biology and set them upon the universe to wreak havoc until dinosaurs showed up. The book said it took 7 days. And ribs and dirt.
The Bible says so. Nothing else matters.
That's why it's pointless to argue scripture with him. The book is everything and allows so brilliantly for circular logic and cherry picking. It worked with slavery and how many are willing to argue nowadays in front of a TV camera for it? But gays are not slaves and women can always be picked on. Some wrong ideas are easier to conceal behind a book cover than others.
The Bible is everything to him, God and Jesus are just featured players. In the end they could be replaced by Donald Duck and Batman, they just weren't around back when they started to write it.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't love to hear your thoughts about the latest Daft Punk single, @shinyblurry. Or are you more into Rock music?

@bareboards2
my comment was not really directed at you my dear.i painted my premise with a broad brush that expanded from this thread and addressed something i have found to be more and more practiced on the sift.

you posted your reasons why you used the ignore.
to get rid of the "rabble" and make it easier to read posts you enjoy.
now if that means posts that you agree with or dont find offensive ..well..that is kind of my point.

and you are so right.we all have a right to our opinion and in my opinion to sequester posts you disagree or find offensive is intellectually weak.

@VoodooV you literally just made my entire point by your post and i dont know if that was on purpose or by freak accident.

while i agree with your assertion that @shinyblurry tends to wade in the copy/paste waters and he dwells in circular logic land.you have to give the boy props for lending a perspective of a christian fundamentalist on a mainly secular left site.

that boy can rile you all up like a stick to a hornets nest.which is endless entertainment for me.

but lets change that paradigm shall we?
why dont you head down to your nearest baptist church and hand out fliers concerning evolution to the congregation and tell them god doesnt exist.

then maybe you would know what it feels like to get blasted by all sides at once.while shiny lacks in clear debate skills.you gotta admire his courage.

as for @chingalera seeking attention.
i dunno.
maybe you are right.
but the real question is how did you come to that conclusion?
by what means did you discern his intentions?motivations?
crystal ball? black magic? a little fairy come by and whisper in your ear?

no.
you used your OWN subjective understanding.your OWN experiences to presume the motivations of another sifter.
thats weak sauce and you better than that.

and then..finally..you ask for a daddy to come in straighten out the people who you:disagree with.argue in a way you dont find constructive (but may be they do).derail threads that maybe you would have enjoyed more if those pesky kids hadnt messed everything up.

the world dont revolve around you so get over yourself man.for fuck sakes!

i was sincere when i said i love your commentary because i truly do.
smart,witty and you usually have something to say.i ADORE your commentary but you are being self righteous on this thread.

i did something very similar last week to @renatojj and he called me out.he was right and i was wrong.

stop trying to impose your ideals of what constructive participation is based solely on your own and limited understanding.
this is not your sift but rather OURS and things will become chaotic at times.

the sift is organic.
allow it to metamorph into whatever it will become.
we do not need a big daddy to direct where it goes and thats the beauty of this site.

the irony in all this exchange between you and i is that i feel you have something to say and have always admired that about you.
allow other people to have their say as well.

> Needs Better lighting - Can't see a dammed thing!

that was my thought too... as an astro-photographer, our images start out damn near jet black.... there is a TON of information in these 18,000 fps runs that they simply aren't making easy to access... too bad

plus it was frustrating how when it got to the most exciting part, the collision of the expanding circular wave on the far side, they cut it just about every time

Actually, that's exactly what I say, and average modern human morality is considerably superior to the filth that the biblical God advocates.

The moral standard of western civilization is founded upon judeo-christian beliefs. Read:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595555455/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366921071&sr=8-1&keywords=book+that+made+your+world

Following the morality the biblical God advocates is the hardest thing you will ever do. The standard of today is a superficial, politically correct morality where you pretend to be nice to people but curse them when they aren't around. God requires a transformation on the inside where you have genuine love for your fellow man.

I am only saying that they are wrong by todays generally agreed upon moral standards. Some of these moral standards are extremely effective and have been around since very early human communities, so they only have the illusion of being absolute due to high adherence rate.

Are you saying nigh universal adherence to certain moral standards isn't evidence for an absolute standard of morality?

Murder, theft, oppression and incest are three fairly obvious examples. The evolutionarily advantageous trait of society building tends to list it's effectiveness when such things are widespread. But we have a very long human tradition of sanctioning and celebrating murder and theft as long as it occurs well outside our cohort. Killing other tribes is celebrated in the bible, as is stealing their possessions. Ethically justified slavery took another 4000 years to mostly get rid of, and hell, it was common practice to fuck your fifteen year old cousin all the way up to about the late 1800s here in the good old US of A as long as it was under the marital auspices of the church, of course.

Yep, but thank God that his just definition of morality - if we didn't have god's guidance through scripture, we'd probably do crazy shit!

You don't understand what God was doing in the Old Testament, or why He did it the way He did. It is morally consistent with His goodness and holiness, and there are logical reasons for why this is so. So far you are not interested in hearing them or discussing them. When you are let me know. In the end you don't have any excuse for suppressing the truth about Jesus, no matter what you think about how God acted in the Old Testament.

Using the word 'absolute' is a concession to brevity, but nice try - seriously dude, this is laughable and it wouldn't even stand up in Jr. High debate - absolutes do exist, they just need to be well justified, and yes if you want to be nitpicky about it there is an ever so remote chance that 1+1 is not equal to two in some distant corner of the universe. But as humans with an admittedly limited scope of understanding, we have to accept that level of certainty. If you want to relegate your theory to claiming its space somewhere in the possibility that we might be wrong about the whole 2+2=4 thing, go right on ahead.

There, that's what I meant by absolute. happy?

Basically, what you're saying is that because 2+2 probably equals four everywhere in the Universe, you are free to make absolute statements about morality? The fact is that your belief system leaves you with no justification for any absolute statement what so ever. Why should 2 + 2 always equal 4 in the first place? Can you tell me why the laws of physics should work in the same way 5 seconds from now without using circular reasoning?

Can you justify any piece of knowledge without God? If you can then tell me one thing you know and how you know it. Could you be wrong about everything you know?

Well then thanks for the offer, but I think I'll pass in the whole god based morality thing. I prefer to have a really good reason to never slaughter innocent kids. But thanks for finally answering my question: there has been a good reason to butcher a toddler after all! Praise The Lord, for he is good!

It comes back to the same question: As the giver of life, and the adjudicator of His Creation, is it wrong for God to take life?

And here's another interesting brain tickler. If everything god commands is right, and god has a track record of testing his faithful with their willingness to commit infanticide, how can you say that this lady isn't moral?

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-08-17/news/0108170166_1_baby-s-death-baby-s-father-documents

The scripture is finished and anything which contradicts it is not of God.

Wrong, I know that things are wrong because humans and cultures have a long history of interacting with reality, and certain strategies have been more successful than others. You haven't spent one iota of your time discrediting this notion, whereas I have given you plenty of examples crediting mine and discrediting yours.

What I am supposed to be discrediting? You're asking me to nail jello to a wall. You have not even defined what "successful" is supposed to mean beyond pure survival. In that case, every civilization has been successful. Tell me what your definition of success is supposed to be.

For the millionth time, I have no hopes of convincing you of anything - you'll defend your stance against literally any proof. But you seem to come here on the sift with the intent of demonstrating to others that there is some logical basis for your beliefs.

What proof? The foundation of atheism stands upon the shifting sands of relative truth. You, the atheist, ultimately make yourself the measure of all truth. Because of that, you can't tell me a single fact about the world that you can justify.

Well you're failing miserably, mainly because you are only capable of restating the following sentence as if it is an agreed upon truth:

"Not only is the entire concept logically contradictory, but it doesn't match our experience, which is that some things are absolutely wrong. "

I don't expect you to have any good support for that, but the audience out there just waiting to be convinced, they will need at least something.

Torturing babies for fun; not absolutely wrong?

I'm still waiting for you to give Stalin some kind, any kind of argument as to why he should adopt your morality and abandon his own. If you can't tell Stalin why he is wrong, then you have no hope of escaping the charge of incoherency.