>> ^hpqp:

promote this delicious Sailor Moon parody!


I only wish it was just Sailor Moon.

Here in Osaka I can't get through the day without my daughter bouncing off the sofa, re-enacting a transformation scene in one of her shows.

This one's currently her favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28c0Bj-SBtU

I usually avert my eyes lest I go into seizures.

OMG Funniest College Humor EVER. I laughed so hard I cried like a baby. Anyone looking in my window probably thought I was having a seizure. God damn that was funny.

...gasp...can't...describe...the...awesome...seizure...about...to...happen

>> ^dgandhi:
Really? I quote common phrases from well established ideologies, and you just can't figure it out, so I'm doing it wrong?

Look, if you have no idea about the alternatives to your self contradicting belief system you can't really expect to have a discussion with people literate in these issues without having to look some stuff up, do your homework.

Your lack of general knowledge in this field is not an argument against those who disagree with you.

No, you’re quoting “objectivism” for its absurdity like it has another meaning. You’re quoting phrases from other ideologies without establishing how it has any relevance to the video. You have failed to make any argument that liberty is self-contradicting. Quoting other ideologies and then saying those quotes contradict themselves—that has no relevance to liberty.
>> ^dgandhi:
Randism and Marxism are based on the same initial premise: people have a natural right to objects created by their labor. The video you posted makes a Randian argument, whether you believe that this argument existed before Rand is immaterial, we are not debating authorship, we are debating content.
Incorrect. Marxism does not share that premise. I don’t deny Rand believes in liberty, objectivism goes beyond just believing in liberty. That’s 0 for 2.
>> ^dgandhi:
I can just as easily claim that the fact that property is a social construction is self-evident, but that gets us nowhere since "self-evident" is just sloppy posturing.
Where does production come from? If it is a social construction then it would be self-evident.
>> ^dgandhi:
I made no claim about the efficacy of actions taken by individuals, I only made claims of power. Power is fact, not social convention. In my society I am forbidden from taking heavy objects and bashing people over the head with them. I still have the power to do it, because my body is capable of the motion and my mind is capable of directing it, which society I live in effects this not at all.

My point is that I am dealing in facts, and you are dealing in imposed social contracts, and attempting to conflate the two.

Then you have no point. Fact: Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits. Social convention: Property is taken from individuals to serve the collective.
>> ^dgandhi:
I insist it is categorically wrong, and you insist on perpetuating its basis. You really don't have a leg up on this one.
No, Liberty insists slavery is categorically wrong, you insist it doesn’t exist and never could.
>> ^dgandhi:
I have a social contract with my neighbors. If every social contract I have with my neighbors is universal and immutable, then I suppose there is a sacred responsibly to mow your lawn, and not park your car in the stretch of public space in front of my house. You also, by this "logic" (oh no, fear quotes, do't get distracted) are required by your natural rights to pay taxes, and submit to reasonable search and seizure.
False. Social contracts are not by default based on protecting liberty.

>> ^dgandhi:
You are all tied in knots because you want a benefit of social contract without the costs, you want to free ride, and it bothers you that we think you have no right to do so. In order to rationalize this to yourself you have decided that you are entitled to property by some mechanism outside of the social contract. The problem is you have failed to realize that in the absence of that contract, claims to property have no power. If society at large does not accept your property claim, then society will not protect your property, and others will use it with impunity. No amount of hand waving will create the power to protect your unattended stake out of thin air.
False again. If I produce something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me. I only seek a social contract as a means of collective force to protect myself and other individuals from unlawful action.

>> ^marbles:

@dgandhi
You seem to have a problem understanding how quotations work.

Really? I quote common phrases from well established ideologies, and you just can't figure it out, so I'm doing it wrong?

Look, if you have no idea about the alternatives to your self contradicting belief system you can't really expect to have a discussion with people literate in these issues without having to look some stuff up, do your homework.

Your lack of general knowledge in this field is not an argument against those who disagree with you.

>> ^marbles:


I’m still trying to figure out how something can be “ideology indistinguishable” from objectivism and also a Marxist axiom. Fascinating that it can capture the essence of two polar opposite philosophies. But nevertheless, it doesn’t matter--since it’s neither.

Randism and Marxism are based on the same initial premise: people have a natural right to objects created by their labor. The video you posted makes a Randian argument, whether you believe that this argument existed before Rand is immaterial, we are not debating authorship, we are debating content.

If you can point out even one point made by the video that diverges from Rand, then you can make a distinction, otherwise I'll continue to call it what it is.

>> ^marbles:
From the video: “Property is that part of Nature which you turn to valuable use.” That’s reality. It’s self-evident.

I can just as easily claim that the fact that property is a social construction is self-evident, but that gets us nowhere since "self-evident" is just sloppy posturing.

>> ^marbles:

And others live in places that don’t share the same freedom you have. What’s your point? Did your choices and actions produce anything of value?

I made no claim about the efficacy of actions taken by individuals, I only made claims of power. Power is fact, not social convention. In my society I am forbidden from taking heavy objects and bashing people over the head with them. I still have the power to do it, because my body is capable of the motion and my mind is capable of directing it, which society I live in effects this not at all.

My point is that I am dealing in facts, and you are dealing in imposed social contracts, and attempting to conflate the two.

Value is also an arbitrary social convention, you will find that it will not help you here.

>> ^marbles:
Thanks, you just ended slavery all over the world! It's amazing!



I insist it is categorically wrong, and you insist on perpetuating its basis. You really don't have a leg up on this one.

>> ^marbles:

Of course, we both know that's not what you, or the author, meant. You both mean that I have an obligation to accept your property arguments, that I can think whatever I want as long as I obey. Sorry, again, that does not seem to fit the general accepted definition of the word liberty in English.
You don’t have to accept my property argument. And I don’t have to accept your nonsense that property isn’t property. But guess who wins—the one with the property. Don’t believe me: Go ahead and “make use of all the things” of your nearest neighbor. Take his car, his money, his clothes. Let me know how that works out.


I have a social contract with my neighbors. If every social contract I have with my neighbors is universal and immutable, then I suppose there is a sacred responsibly to mow your lawn, and not park your car in the stretch of public space in front of my house. You also, by this "logic" (oh no, fear quotes, do't get distracted) are required by your natural rights to pay taxes, and submit to reasonable search and seizure.

You are attempting to get an ought from an is, while completely disregarding the why of the is, or the other things that are for the same reason. The fact that social contract property looks like Randian property 99.999% of the time does not make it the same thing.

You are all tied in knots because you want a benefit of social contract without the costs, you want to free ride, and it bothers you that we think you have no right to do so. In order to rationalize this to yourself you have decided that you are entitled to property by some mechanism outside of the social contract. The problem is you have failed to realize that in the absence of that contract, claims to property have no power. If society at large does not accept your property claim, then society will not protect your property, and others will use it with impunity. No amount of hand waving will create the power to protect your unattended stake out of thin air.

High Rates of Autism Found in Federal Vaccine Injury Program: Study Says More Answers Needed
Posted: 05/10/11 12:41 PM ET
For the past two decades, according to the group, "the federal government has publicly denied a vaccine-autism link, while at the same time its Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has been awarding damages for vaccine injury to children with brain damage, seizures and autism."

Their investigation, "based on public, verifiable government data, breaks new ground in the controversial vaccine-autism debate," and reports that "a substantial number of children compensated for vaccine injury also have autism -- the evidence suggests that autism is at least three times more prevalent among vaccine-injured children than among children in the general population."

How many epileptic seizures did they cause?

Here's some more articles from naturalnews.com covering the potential dangers of vaccines. The articles are sourced. I used Naturalnews because it's a website I personally trust and one that I read on a regular basis.

Re: infants
The hepatitis B vaccine is linked to infant death, multiple sclerosis and autoimmune disorders
New study: Nations requiring the most vaccines tend to have the worst infant mortality rates
More than 2,000 vaccinated babies died: The cost of doing business
Abortion stillbirth events from Gardasil far exceed all other vaccines
Are MMR vaccines dangerous for children? Dr Suzanne Humphries urges parents to get informed
Flu vaccine causing infant seizures; FDA to investigate
Babies given pneumococcal vaccination risk infection with serious drug resistant respiratory disease

Re: fraud
CDC vaccine scientist who downplayed links to autism indicted by DOJ in alleged fraud scheme
Dr. Jonas Salk, inventor of polio vaccine, exposed as criminal-minded scientist who conducted illicit medical experiments on mental patients
Medical 'experts' pushing HPV vaccines told what not to say about them, including their death toll
The FDA is a clearing house for Food and Drug Corruption
Hidden government papers expose lies about measles vaccines for infants
WHO list reveals flu advisors with financial ties to pharma, vaccine manufacturers
Flu Vaccines, pharma fraud, quack science, the CDC and WHO -- all exposed by Richard Gale and Gary Null
WHO scandal exposed: Advisors received kickbacks from H1N1 vaccine manufacturers
Central Figure in CDC Vaccine Safety Studies Investigated for Fraud
Vaccination Quackery Appears in Plain Sight

Re: autism
Sixth study in recent months links mercury in flu shots to brain damage, autism
Multiple studies link autism to mercury, which is still present in most flu vaccines
Government vaccine compensation payouts prove autism link
Latest research links autism to vaccines
Thimerosal-free childhood vaccines still suspect in autism

Re: other
Vaccines lower immunity
Swine flu vaccine linked to 900 percent increased risk of developing narcolepsy
Government Admits Link between H1N1 Vaccine and Deadly Nerve Disease
Japan halts vaccines from Pfizer, Sanofi after deaths of four children
Influenza vaccine sends children into convulsions
Australia bans flu vaccines in children after vomiting, fevers, seizures
Finland suspends H1N1 vaccines after children suffer narcolepsy from vaccinations
Flu vaccine push already underway; first batch causes seizures in children
Pig virus contaminates rotavirus vaccines, but FDA says no problem
India halts HPV vaccine trial after six girls die, US does nothing in response to 67 deaths and counting
Seasonal flu vaccines increase risk of pandemic H1N1 flu, stunned scientists discover

>> ^brycewi19:

Aren't the point of movie trailers to give the viewer a general sense of what the movie is about?
Being that I've never read the books, only have heard of them, I've now watched that trailer learning nothing about it and only came away with the possibility of contracting seizures and/or a serious case of ADHD with those 1/4 second, seemingly-unrelated clips.


Glad I'm not the only one thinking that. No idea how the movie will be but this may be the worst trailer I've ever seen.

And it's ShakyCam footage to boot. Yay.

To sum up, murder mystery with quirky character lead basically. Recommend watching the Swedish version since it's a great movie in and of itself.

Do have to say I prefer these kinds of trailers to ones that give away two thirds of the plot.>> ^brycewi19:

Aren't the point of movie trailers to give the viewer a general sense of what the movie is about?
Being that I've never read the books, only have heard of them, I've now watched that trailer learning nothing about it and only came away with the possibility of contracting seizures and/or a serious case of ADHD with those 1/4 second, seemingly-unrelated clips.

Aren't the point of movie trailers to give the viewer a general sense of what the movie is about?

Being that I've never read the books, only have heard of them, I've now watched that trailer learning nothing about it and only came away with the possibility of contracting seizures and/or a serious case of ADHD with those 1/4 second, seemingly-unrelated clips.

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^Sarzy:
Umm... I know we're supposed to automatically be outraged in cases like this, but if I have the story right, the man was pointing an AR-15 at the cops as they came through the door. Google that -- it's a pretty serious looking gun. Were the police supposed to wait until he started shooting at them and only then fire back? They had the siren going before they came in, they yelled something before they broke the door down, so what else were they supposed to do (other than not be there at all)?

If the man was pointing a rifle at the swat/door, then the shooting is comprehensible. There is quite a difference between this and the downright manslaughter without justification in this video.
Where I live, we have the opposite problem: cops can barely defend themselves without the general public going ape-shit and instantly siding with the alleged culprits. In Geneva, a group of gangsters robbed an exchange bureau with automatic rifles, came out guns blazing at the cops during traffic hour (i.e. many civilians around...)
and now one of them is attacking the Geneva police in court, because he was shot although allegedly unarmed. (article en français)


That's only true if the cops had reason to be there in the first place. Which brings me to another problem, the issuance of search warrants without due diligence by judges. Proposed amendment to the 4th should be

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, on the penalty of perjury , and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In the event that a search warrant is found to have been enacted wrongly and bodily harm is caused to the defendant, or anyone associated at the time and place of the warrants execution, the executing officers, all present at the time of execution, are to be be punished for whatever harm has come upon the defendant and or any associates. The minimum penalty for a wrongful death shall be a charge of manslaughter. Furthermore any property damages, including livestock, or household pets, shall also warrant appropriate restitution and punishment.

They lied about the shooting, they haven't said whether they found drugs or not. I'm inclined, as I always am, to not believe a word of what an officer says; let alone the organization they work for.

In short, full on criminal investigation into every, fucking, one of the bastards. The people deserve, no, are guaranteed the right to be safe in their persons, and properties.

>> ^NaMeCaF:
If he was clinically dead, how come he was moving his arms and looked like he was trying to breathe?

I think the arm and tongue movement you can see on camera is a result of the defibrillator shock. You have a few large muscles in your arms that, when contracted, will bend your arm like that. They also mention that he's in seizure, which could explain the movement.

Been there, usually results with shaking/seizure like.


Makes you think to yourself " uh oh, that wasn't good for the body "


generally with a gravity bong, and its the lack of oxygen to the brain is what I figure, as well as obvious other reasons.

I like smokin Cannabis while watching people smoke cannabis, maybe he was watching someone smoke cannabis as well !

>> ^Sagemind:
Georgia law actually is remarkably clear on this point; law enforcement agencies must report civil seizures to local governing bodies every year. Unfortunately, many law enforcement agencies, including those sued by IJ, simply choose to ignore this mandate.

I know a lot of people like to believe in the stability of a representational government, but it's not without its glaring flaws, especially when we ask this very basic question: Who polices the police?

The correct answer should be "the people", but how? We want to empower the police to be the strongest domestic force, but what happens when they refuse to follow the law? How're the people supposed to police that? Oversight only does so much. And if the police are the best and most armed, then what'll make them listen to the people?

Harken back at the very first Democratic President, Andrew Jackson, for proof of this abuse of power. He pushed the Indian Removal Act through Congress which removed all Native Americans east of the Mississippi River. The Cherokee fought this all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Jackson response was something along the lines of, "The courts made their decision, let's see them enforce it!"

What followed was the Trail of Tears. That's all three of the branches of this checks-and-balances representational government failing justice completely. And this is partly why all forms of human government are corruptible. No one polices the government. It's impossible.