>> ^marbles:

Don’t Blame Capitalism for Wall Street’s Corruption and Lawlessness:
When Mahatma Gandhi was asked what he thought about Western civilization, he answered:
I think it would be a good idea.
I feel the same way about free market capitalism.
It would be a good idea, but it is not what we have now. Instead, we have either socialism, fascism or a type of looting.
If people want to criticize capitalism and propose an alternative, that is fine . . . but only if they understand what free market capitalism is and acknowledge that America has not practiced free market capitalism for some time.


think you'll find that it's the move towards a more free market that made things worse, from deregulation in the 70's onwards. governments and presidents Preached about the reduction of big government, and letting the market do what it wants.
Granted, its never strictly speaking been, a free market, because you still had government taxing (though as Wolff has pointed out in the video, shifting the burden completely away from business, and therefore, the market) but what you can say is this:

history now tells us that the more free the market, the worse things become....what makes you think having a 100% free market would make things perfect?
It would be total anarchy. The wealth divide would become incomprehensible.

It's all there, in history. The proof to end all these arguments is there, because it's already happened. Regulation, after the great depression, immediately improved things for America, taxing the wealthy, using that money to put in infrastructure that made america a superpower.
Deregulate everything, and watch the western worlds decline (for the majority).
That is what happened, you cannot argue a situation that actually happened.

All you need is a government that isn't corrupt, that doesn't pander to the free market and peoples desires to win elections, but instead holds certain ideas to be true. The death of idealism was supposed to make individuals free, instead it produced a new kind of control that made things a lot worse for the majority of people.
I believe science will ultimately find out the definition of 'human flourishing' and therefore create a new idea of what is actually best for a society.

theres only 1 reason you'd want to go to the cinema - if its some amazing film you desperately want to see before its released on bluray. Thats the ONLY reason - due to the reasons westy has listed.
however since theres maybe about 5 films actually worth watching in an entire year, you wouldnt be that desperate enough to see the rest.


i spent £660 in 2010 summer on my 47inch LCD, and £550 on a Q acoustins 5.1 sound system, £200 on an amp, and a bluray player. i sit about 2m from the screen. if you're happy to wait 2-3 months for the film to come out on bluray, like i am, you're rewarded with a stunning viewing experience. plus the fact that you're in a comfortable chair, can pause if you need to, and all the other freedoms that humans are accustomed to.

why on earth would you want to go to a cinema? they are essentially gas chambers with a screen.

(LOL at the sarcasm tickbox.......fail)

>> ^Enzoblue:

Talk about black and white. They didn't deregulate everything, not even close. They selectively removed very specific barriers to a very select number of companies so that they could rape at will. All laws that prevented or hindered anyone hurt by these changes to fight back, (plus many new ones), were kept very much in place. The deregulated the fat cats and over-regulated the rest.
Another example of what I'm getting at:
Why do I have to have that bulky stupid baby car seat? Why can't car companies make a built in the middle of the back? Because the select few companies that make a fortune off the overpriced buggers have paid government officials a lot of money. Those officials make sure that any advances in baby seats never make it out of government inspection. Now we have the same design we got in the 80's.
This is what I'm talking about.
P.s.
I am a closet anarchist.


you are joking. They did deregulate major laws which had been in place for years - google Glass Steagall act, for one.
In this country you had a financial services authority who turned a blind eye to the cdo's that were being traded, and/or didn't even know what these new banking derivatives were, not even the bank of England had a clue.
Because there was no control, bankers would simply sell these loans on, making their huge sums of money+bonuses, and not caring for the consequences.

And how many times have we seen this process in history? Speculation causing bubbles, which then burst.

I don't understand your car company example..... car manufacturers give the option for an ISOFIX standard implementation in the back seat so parents can put any kind of seat they want in the back. They could sell the seat as an option as well...but why bother when there's already a huge market out there for babyseats.

What.
But yeh, your point is basically corruption. Well, you think the government stops progress, what about corporations? Surely the corporations are as much to blame for paying off government officials as the government is for accepting them? it takes two to tango.

And why can they pay? Because they are ridiculously rich in the first place. All thanks to the lovely free market. As I said in my previous post, im not saying free market is bad. You just need a good mix of both, erring on the side of Control that benefits the nation, not wealthy individuals. Also I did acknowledge corrupt politicians in my previous post - what are you gona do about it? We're living in democracies aren't we? Just vote these politicians out right???

Democracy my ass. But. thats a whole different matter.

Enzoblue


'Self Regulation' is exactly what the Bush administration, and here in Britain, did. They said 'the free market knows best, knows more than us. Let them get on with it'.

And they deregulated everything. And look what happened.

All you people ever seem to understand is black and white. The fact is for most things in life to work, especially in economics, there's always a compromise that needs to be found.
You americans have all been brainwashed by the red army propaganda from way back when, and anything remotely to do with government you cry of communism. How absurd.

Deregulation played a major part in the financial meltdown. As westy says, business fundementally is about exploiting people. If you make a profit on something, you are exploiting. If you were to leave Healthcare to the private world, their fundamental concern is to maximise shareholder wealth - not to maximise the nations health.

You can go on deluding yourselves about glorious capitalism - history and evidence has shown.........it doesn't work. You need a bit of both. You need free markets to keep prices down and generate competition, but you also need governments to not let companies get too huge, create barriers to entry into markets (which is the current situation, thus suppressing competition) and have taxes which benefit people who aren't rich (i.e. 99% of the world population.....)
I advise you to read some books on this myth of 'free market is best'.
The cost of capitalism: robert j barbera
The myth of the rational market: justin fox
House of cards: william d cohan

The last one especially talks about the greed of wall street you hear so much about, but don't seem to acknowledge. When youve got money as a motivating factor, all ethical concerns and welfare of others go straight out the window. If you want your perfect free market - that is the exact mentality that will take place - which would be fine if everyone was starting off on an even plate, with the same amount of assets - but they're not. The inequality between poor/average/rich is so huge it would never be fair to begin with.

The problem of course now is politicians see their positions as careers, rather than civil servants. But with a good government, with good people, if that will ever happen, proper regulation and control of the markets has to take place to ensure the equality gap doesn't become even more wide than it is at the moment. Oil company profits anyone?

yeh, if YOU'RE gona make a point about someone elses grammar.........make sure YOUR own grammar is correct.

n00b.

Enoch.

That was the entire point of the video. You're putting what harris is saying down to over-generalisation. This is the point he's making in the video - its not.

Religion is fundamentally not true, or certainly the premise of it. If it was true, it'd be classed as some sort of science. Harris is saying in the video that its the non believers who give him the most grief, because they think religion commands some sort of respect, or appraisal.

Fact is, it doesn't. THese 'over generalisations' are not false. This is really what religion is like. The fundamental belief in something not true/no proof of existing and basing an entire life around this false system - this is true in ALL of the 6 main religions in the world.

With regards to the palestinian bomber - why did the IRA not do suicide bombing?? Eh? Because the palestinian bomber believes he is doing something in the name of God, and doing a righteous thing before he dies. This is exactly the point Harris was making - no matter how much political or economic motivation there might be to bomb something - to bomb yourself??? No. How about the fact that they SAY 'Allah oh akhbar' all the time.
I watched a documentary recently where the reporter went to the schools training the kids in the Quran, constantly, every single day, even though arabic wasn't even their normal language.
Now fair enough, lack of education breeds stupidity, which therefore breeds more of a susceptibility of believing in religion, but the fact is, religion and a belief in god IS the tool. What you've said about the suicide bombing is clearly not true, you need to either read more or watch more documentaries on it (I advise you to google Dispatches)

It's exactly people like you that harris was referring to - the religions sympathizers. Its you people who need to realise how dumb and stupid religion is, and how it should be given no respect whatsoever, and mocked at instead.

Fundamentalism is simply following religion to the point of violence, or basically being a 100% retard. Believing religion if you're a 'moderate' - you're still 99% an idiot. Religion says this : 'Believe this, because it says so in this book, and God says so.' It teaches you to believe in something without questioning it, or looking for evidence - by using 'faith'. As westy says - this is the belief in something without evidence. I actually have more respect for fundamentalists - because they are following their religion 100% truthfully as the book describes. No picking and choosing BS that the moderates constantly do.

If you are religious, you're immediately into that cycle of irrational thinking, no matter how moderate or fundamental you are. Forget fundamentalism - get to the core of the problem - RELIGION.

i think this video is proper racist, and playing to all the frowned upon stereotypes, just like loads of westys comments.

whoever uploaded this should be banned for posting such a racist vid, and west should also be banned, and all the people who found this funny should be given some sort of warning.

this website should not be endorsing racism like this. Loads of vietnamese died in the war.

enoch

youve kind of missed the entire point of the video.

also you seem to think religion is JUST a tool to manipulate/corrupt/control whatever, and not recognise that religion is a lot more then that. It encourages irrational thought, and totally influences the way people think from a child upwards, in those crucial years when the brain is developing.

what do you mean, 'religion is just the mask, who is behind'. I dont know what mean by that - care to elaborate?

You say:
if you listen to mr harris's points on suicide bombers you will be no closer to understanding why these people will blow themselves up than mr harris is.to his credit even mr harris admits this but then speculates it's due to this silly notion of "72 virgins".

What are you on about??? I think you've misheard what he said in the video, or didn't listen properly. He says (ive transcripted):
the biggest challenge as a matter of discourse and debate and certainly the most frustrating challenge comes from otherwise secular and even non believing people. who are just reluctant to ADMIT how much mad work is being done because of religion in this world. I mean they either, cant believe that people really believe this stuff, (For example) so when a suicide bomber blows himself up in a crowd of children, this secular person will imagine "that wasn't religion, it had nothing to do with a believe in virgins and paradise, who can believe that? its some kind of pyschological aboration or caused by economic desperation or policies in the regiion, its not a matter of metaphysical belief"

I think the jury is IN on this - we KNOW people really DO believe these things.

harris' point of this vid was the acknowledgement people SHOULD be giving on how stupid religion is, rather than giving respect to it, and how they should admit its causing more bad and disruption then they give credit for.
Also, at no point is he just picking on islam - hes just using it as a simple example. You make it sound like hes just picking on muslims when he obviously isn't. He's talking about religion in absolute broad terms and simply gave a few examples to illustrate his point. What do you want, an example for each religion?

I don't understand your entire quote, basically.

>> ^Throbbin:
I guess it's easy to say that when you have never been on the receiving end of a racial slur. How's that ivory tower working out for you assholes?


Actually, I have, in primary school. And at the odd few various points throughout my life. As i grew older it was much more in a jokey way, obviously, and i was treated no less differently in terms of equality or opportunity. i found it hilarious, and played along.

so yeah, i have been on the receiving end. clearly, i grew some balls. you want the admin to grow some balls? Why don't you grow some of these balls you talk about, and quit your sensitive whining.

he's clearly not going to get banned, considering i and a few others here have rationalised what he said, and explained it how we see it - to which we've had no decent response except some immature insult.

i love how your counter argument, to the 'oh you're being too sensitive crowd', like me, was 'oh you've never been on the receiving end of a racial slur, stay in your ivory tower:
thereby assuming I and everyone else who is saying 'you're being oversensitive' is white.
That shows a clear lack of understanding....of our explanation of why you're being over sensitive, because you assumed we said that, because we'd never been on the end of receiving racial slurs. Us saying 'you're being oversensitive' is not a product of the fact that we don't know what its like to be on the receiving end, and therefore can rationalise it - thats not the trigger. I'm telling you, I have been on the receiving end, yet I can still rationalise westy's comments as being quite obviously totally innocent, and tried to explain it in my previous post with the specific language used. You just ignored it. i mean clearly you still fail to see why westy's various comments aren't racist. i've tried to help and it hasn't worked. all i can do is point you in the direction of some comedy writers who work at tv companies. and maybe they can explain to you with more examples - people who deal with this fine line on a daily basis.

your 'siftquisition' or whatever - has failed. 0WNED!

>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^siaiaiaaaaaa:
>> Blahblahblahblah


yeah, ignorance is bliss isn't it.

i tried to explain as simply as possible how from a language point of view it is very easy to see why westy isn't being racist. you still don't understand it, and then counter my argument with nothing. nothing but another immature insult.

both you and throbbin. its people like you that bring society down to your simple level of thinking and understanding.

pathetic.
obama loves fried chicken, i bet.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH MYYYYYYYYYYYYYY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODDDDD

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^burdturgler:
So how many racist comments should it take then?
"Finaly a way to rid the world of black people ,"
"well I am shocked everyone knows gays are the only group of people worse than black people."
"baist on my biast view on the world black people shouldent vote"

That's uh...that's enough for me. Fuckin' nuke 'im


i mean. you moron.
in the last example he even makes his pisstake OBVIOUS by saying 'based on my biased view'

did that not occur or even remotely hint to you that he worded in that way to take the piss out of people who actually ARE racist/biggots.
What you've done is shown a serious lack of understanding of subtle humour or pisstaking.

lets deal with the first two, less obvious examples. Key words here are 'well i am shocked, everyone knows.....'
HEARD OF SARCASM??????

'Finally a way to rid...' Note use of the word, finally, at the beginning of the sentence, suggesting he's saying it in a pithy or flippant manner, i.e. whatever he was referring to obviously wasn't a good way to rid the world of black people, if there was such a method, and if there was, it'd be pointless because why would you want to rid the world of black people.
for example, mum: 'oh son you'd be happy when im dead and gone, wouldn't you! why do you give me all this grief?'
me: 'yeh, thats right, when you die i'll be like 'Finally, you're dead, i can do what i want now!'
(storm off upstairs into room)

you should be nuked for ... not. understanding. things. or simple concepts in language. granted you can't tell his tone because you're not listening to audio of him speaking, but i and probably many others can spot the subtle differences which make these views quite obviously not serious, when reading text - and infact its doing the complete opposite - his comments are taking the piss out of people who actually DO have racist views, mocking them by saying what they might say, with subtle use of sarcasm.

wat?? nono sorry that wasn't directed at you, someone called me an aggressive prick due to the so called angered tone of my initial response.

doesnt matter.

i am deeply offended by alien_concept's insult to me though, thats now psychologically scarred my confidence, and im going to struggle to find jobs and build relationships with people. he also insulted aggressive pricks by insinuating that they are not good people.

he should be banned.

>> ^Crake:
As a Dane I feel obligated to point out that the cartoon hilarity was Danish. The Dutch prefer the film medium when it comes to pissing off Muslim fundamentalists.


oh yeh. sorry it happened a while ago.

oh, and aggressive pricks are winn0rz. being passive gets you no where in the dog eat dog world of life.

you're all pathetic if you think thats a bannable offence.

thats half the problem with this world, people are too sensitive to words.
Its pathetic - get a life.

its like with muslims, and the whole dutch cartoon tragedy. Instead of telling muslims to get a grip, no, the media gave them respect for their stupid ideology, which then perpetuates religious belief even more.

if you ban him you're effectively banning free speech. its not his problem if you take it personally, you're the one invoking emotion into it. thats your own problem. deal with it.

it was hardly a 'hate speech' or racism. hes not inciting any motion of inequality with what he said, in any way. as long as people aren't actively stopping black people from having the same quality of life as whites, then both parties can say what they like to each other.

and the one of what he said quite clearly wasn't malicious either. some people are just so sensitive to anything bordering remotely on the explicit. i'll say it again - pathetic.
I STAB BUNNY RABBITS IN THE EYES.

imstellar28's post above is bang on.

he had it coming to him, to be honest.