I've had the opportunity to encounter a Great Dane before, those dogs are awesome! And stay away from their tail when their wagging it, it's like a metal cable being whipped around...

F.E.A.R. 2 quote

"Have you ever seen a hippopotamus fight? They start crapping and wagging their tails really fast and shit just flies everywhere! It's fucking insane!"

-Snake Fist

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by lucky760.

My dog had golden eyelashes. She lost one eye, went deaf, and was 14 when she died.

But she was a happy little fucker. Always wagging her tail-less butt. Always eating marshmellows like she was in loved. And guess what? My wife may have hated her when she was alive, but she sure misses you now.

Tinker Bell the 32nd

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

He did really skirt around the happy pill issue though. I had my virtual hand up during one of his previous talks and wanted to ask that question, so I was glad when Dawkins brought it up. However Harris restructured the hypothesis to make it easier to answer; which was disappointing. On top of that; his answer largely just exposed his entire argument as not really solving what it proposes to solve.

He asks us to accept (which I do) that there is a baseline for misery; therefore there can be a measure of 'true' results to human happiness.

If this is true then there will also be a baseline of success and measurable results for a happiness pill. He avoided this and gave more specific examples of what the happiness pill would be; thereby introducing several strawman problems with it.

Dawkins even chipped in (42:10) 'well you slanted again; it wouldn't have to be like that'.

When you reduce Harris' proposition and the main problem with it; it comes down to that. Whether morality can be measured and tested in a scientific way; therefore allowing decisions to be made based upon those measurements.

The argument against actually manifested itself most strongly when he was discussing the grief pill hypothesis. He answered the question with another question: 'When would you take that pill?'; which ultimately breaks down his entire argument. If there is something fundamental that prevents his proposition from answering that question; then it shows how his proposition is unworkable beyond the 'low hanging fruit' brought up by one of the audience.

Besides, if we did implement his ideas it would require measurement based planning. As a software developer that has spent time developing to measurement based management, and as a Brit with a very measurement based government, it's my opinion that measurement based planning leads to the 'tail wagging the dog'.

With measurement based planning; the actual real world goals that you are trying to achieve will always take second place; and will even be forsaken in the interest of achieving measured results. In Harris' scenario, this would eventually translate to the use of the happiness pill; rather than making decisions about the real world in order to achieve that happiness.

So let's take the straw men out of the happiness pill hypothesis (as Dawkins intended), using a scenario from the movie The Matrix where everyone is hooked up to a machine that feeds them a virtual life that provides mental sustenance. Of course, the purposes of this was quite different to the happy pill hypothesis; but the scenario is right. In the story Agent Smith actually said (paraphrasing) "We did try to give the humans a life of bliss, but eventually they rejected it. There is something about them that requires misery.", but let us suppose that that life of bliss worked out just fine.

In that scenario, we have now perfectly succeeded in achieving Harris' goal of measurement based; scientifically engineered happiness for all. However, I think most people would agree that the scenario is abhorrent and undesirable.

Harris also answered this problem with another (quite woolly) question (paraphrasing): 'How close would we want that happiness to track reality?'. Again, if his proposition cannot answer that question, then it is largely unworkable.

If I was Harris, I would explicitly state that his proposition is exclusively in regards to making real world decisions; and not about engineering happiness at an individual level.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by therealblankman.

>> ^rottenseed:

oh yea! yes yes that's it, ol' chap! Now what if, let's say, we have a situation (let me assure you that this is PURELY hypothetical) wherein the congress is heavily influenced by corporations...how would a president pass legislation against corporatism then?>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
Remind me...what steps would a president have to take to push through legislation? Magic? A really stern tone of voice and finger wagging?>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.


It's called Congress. Surely you've heard of the other branches of government?



He couldn't. That's the failure of any human government.

But would you rather have a corporatist prez or not? At the very least he could veto pro-corporatist legislation, right?

oh yea! yes yes that's it, ol' chap! Now what if, let's say, we have a situation (let me assure you that this is PURELY hypothetical) wherein the congress is heavily influenced by corporations...how would a president pass legislation against corporatism then?>> ^blankfist:

>> ^rottenseed:
Remind me...what steps would a president have to take to push through legislation? Magic? A really stern tone of voice and finger wagging?>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.


It's called Congress. Surely you've heard of the other branches of government?

>> ^rottenseed:

Remind me...what steps would a president have to take to push through legislation? Magic? A really stern tone of voice and finger wagging?>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.



It's called Congress. Surely you've heard of the other branches of government?

Remind me...what steps would a president have to take to push through legislation? Magic? A really stern tone of voice and finger wagging?>> ^blankfist:

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.