i have zero desire to see trance banned,that was never my intent for calling him out.
i simply wanted him to acknowledge his emotional response to a disagreement on a video he posted,
that the disagreement was with the video NOT him..personally.

i know this will only further derail this thread but i think it should be said.

a video is not a representation of the person.
being called out does not automatically translate to dislike of the person being called out.

a few weeks ago i did a little experiment with clickbait titles and @ChaosEngine totally called me on it.which gave me a nice chuckle and chaos was in the right but interestingly enough,the experiment worked.that video got 10 times the views it normally would in the same allotted time.

there was another video i posted where i didnt do my due diligence and it turned out to be a total fraud and @speechless (quite politely) called me out on that video and i was forced to apologize in shame.

does all this translate to chaos and speechless disliking me?
of course not.
i got busted using clickbait methodology and not doing my homework.while a tad embarrassing,being called out taught a lesson and a bit of humility.

point: i was the better for it.

trances targeted downvoting was an emotional response and he was behaving foolishly,but make no mistake..trance is no fool.he just took my analysis and criticism personally and responded emotionally.

no animals were harmed,all the puppies are still cute and kitty videos are more popular than ever.

human beings are sometimes irrational and emotional.trance should not be banned for behaving like a human being.

being bigoted toward bigotry is not a thing. bigotry is by definition irrational and should not be tolerated. harvey isn't offering legitimate or original opinions that should be considered. he's offering anachronistic, bigoted bullshit that thinking people have moved away from decades/centuries ago because they realised the err of their thinking. we've ALL heard the kinds of things harvey says in this video and most of us have learned and understood thoroughly why they're demonstrably wrong. they're cartoonish and he should be laughed at for his self severing and vapid ideas about the world.

Cenk: "You know he meant bigoted[not racist], stop nitpicking stuff like that.."

NO, thats a crucial fucking point. Its not bigotry nor racism, it is criticism of a RELIGION, not a race, not a people, not a population, not a country, not a skin color , not a sex, , not a language, not a philia, not a fuckin skull shape. A religion. There is a crucial difference. If you cant see the difference, then I'm sorry: Try again.

The thing is, criticizing a bad idea, or a collection of bad ideas can never be racist nor bigoted.

That not to say that some people aren't irrationally hating and bigoted towards muslims, or people who look like they might be muslims, but that is a COMPLETELY different thing.

Everyone understands this in politics: if you think the republican party sucks, that doesnt mean you hate people with a texan accent. Still, I'm sure some people think people with a thick texan accent are automatically to be considered as racist hillbillies who vote republican. That's stereotyping and bigotry. Being anti-republican is not.

BTW, anyone bamboozled by Reza Aslans fantasies about islamic countries being equality paradises shoud read Muhammad Syed and Sarah Haiders dismantling of his distortions right here : http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/05/reza-aslan-is-wrong-about-islam-and-this-is-why/

Couldn't agree more. But (there's always a 'but')... if a person convinces themself that they feel better without gluten, then the most passionate and data filled argument presented to tell them that what they feel is not justifiable scientifically, they're still going to be silly and tell the informed individual to screw off. The point is, some people have a reason that is good enough for them, and nobody is going to convince them otherwise. Are we really that dialed in to what's healthy and what nutrients we need for a healthy lifestyle? (whatever that means...). By example, consider the history of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome - in the early 90's, people were feeling shitty and weak, in pain and suffering. They were labeled as fakers or diagnosed as having a psychological disorder, but certainly not a verifiable medical condition related to any consistent physiological disorder. Thousands then and now millions of people have been diagnosed with the disease that is finally recognized as a true medical ailment. The point: we know a lot but we don't know it all when it comes to physiology, nutrition and "sensitivities", and there is no one size fits all solution to guarantee we will be healthy. It's understandable that some are dismissive of this gluten thing as completely irrational based on current science, but parallel that with the irrational and mocked CFS sufferers from 30 years ago who now carry a disease that is has a clear diagnostic methodology and is to varying degrees treatable. Sometimes we don't even know what we don't even know, and for some if it makes them feel better, they're going to do it. Harmful? To each their own.

@VoodooV

two dimensional thinking at its finest.

just because i point out that your commentary is tantamount to harassment does not automatically equal my condoning lantern or bobs oftentimes ridiculous commentary.

just because i am pointing out your hypocrisy does not mean i disagree with your actual comments.

if my fly was open or i had a huge booger hanging from my nose i hope you would pull me aside and point that out to me not stand from the bleachers,point and laugh.

your obsession with always being right has clouded your judgement in regards to what i am trying to point out to you.

is your ego so massive that the words of another should be so easily dismissed?each consecutive comment towards me is becoming more and more irrational and paranoid.

you mentioned calling me out on another thread.
yes you did.
which was a response to ME calling YOU out first.
and i smacked you down pretty handily.mainly due to the fact that you base your commentary towards me rife with presumption and conjecture.

which is exactly what you are doing here...again.

instead of hearing my words,you marginalize me in order to dismiss and ignore them.which is what all weak-minded people do in order to hold onto their own misconceptions.

bob does it.
lantern does it.
and so do you.

but never for a second deceive yourself into thinking i do not have the stones to say what needs to be said.your commentary reveals such an ignorance about who i am that i am literally laughing while i type this to you.

stop projecting voodoo.this persona you write about is not i,but rather you.

one last thing for your consideration (since we have totally hi-jacked this thread.sorry OP,please forgive).one of the main reasons i called you out was due to multiple private emails i received in regards to your current..and i quote one.."douchey attitude".

so the silence you hear is NOT due to agreement or consensus but rather many sifters fear confrontation.

i hold no such fear.

This video reminds me of a situation I was in about a year ago. I was sitting in a bus and all the seats were taken, but there was plenty of room to stand comfortably without having to press against each other. A guy got on the bus, came to my seat and stood unreasonably close to me, pushed himself against my left side and started rubbing his pelvis against me. I didn't know how to respond and although I was very uncomfortable, I just endured it, because I knew that the bus stop was only a few minutes away and I would soon be able to get off the bus. There were many people around me, who probably didn't pay any attention to it. Afterwards, I tried to think of other reasons for him standing so close to me, thought that it might have been unintentional and that I might have read too much into it. I tried to forget about it and moved on. Come to think of it, I can't find a reason for him rubbing against me, since the center of the bus was almost empty.
Until now, I didn't realize that these things seem to happen to women on a regular basis. I don't know if I would be able to speak up if something similar happened to me again. I would be afraid of making an unnecessary scene, thinking that it may actually be unintentional and that I am reading too much into it, in which case I would sound like a lunatic. I know that this thought is irrational, but this is what I would think in that situation.

@Trancecoach

interesting how i use a line i see in your commentary quite often :
"let me know how that works out for ya?"

i was being a cheeky shit,ill grant ya that but to think i was picking a fight?
that dips into delusional land.

ya know trance,
when people point out that you may be coming across as an arrogant ass,most people respond with an apology,but not you!

and @ChaosEngine pointed out the flaw in your logic,just as i have and so many others.
humans are irrational and economics is a human based system.

/drops mic

pick a fight?....seriously?
some people...

@Jerykk

You seem to subscribe to the idea of government spending being fixed and a zero sum game. It's not. If a prison rehabilitation program prevents a former criminal from re-offending and he finds gainful employment, then not only does the country derive potentially lost tax revenue but they avoid the cost of future incarceration. There's a good chance that's a net positive, even though there's initial money put down.

Your mentality fits a uniquely American approach to social problems that many in the rest of the developed world (Europe, Australia, Japan) would find strange, possibly even pathological. Being that, government spending should be kept to a minimum, and every policy should be based on market incentives (in this case threats), even in cases where taking a different approach would produce a better result. Now I studied economics and would be one of the first to say that this is clearly a better approach in many situations. But not all cases.

Your statement here is a good example:

"History has proven that fear is a very effective deterrent. Convince people that there are significant consequences for their actions and they'll think twice before doing something stupid.'

This is intuition, but your intuition is wrong. Firstly codified law does little 'convincing'. How many offenders do you think know the likely sentence of their crime before they are caught? If you agree then how likely do you think say a doubling of the prison term for shop-lifting going to have any effect?

There's no reason to test this because the data exists already when comparing pre and post juvenile offenders. The potential punishment leaps but the risk of re-offending barely changes.

As for more serious crimes, if the graveness of the death penalty is such a strong deterrent, then why does the US lead the charts among developed countries for murder and incarceration rates despite being one of the few that have it? Not to mention, the ones that do, Singapore and Japan barely ever use it.

Frankly, the whole notion that you can rationally deal with a person who is committing a crime (who is fundamentally acting irrational in committing the crime in the first place) is ludicrous.

Let's be serious. Your idea of punishment being a deterrent sounds nice but is not supported by any actual real world data. Meanwhile Scandinavian countries which do focus on rehabilitation have seen substantial drops in recidivism. There's the 'trust me it will work this time' and there's the 'supported by actual evidence' approach.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rational, irrational, number, defined, algebra, algebraic' to 'rational, irrational, number, defined, algebra, algebraic, Vi Hart' - edited by Trancecoach

It's that all cringing feeling that someone is trying to convince you, convert you, get into your head. The irrational thought, speaking it like it's truth, telling you to give up and obey, just let "him" into your heart, and all will be okay - Give up, give in, let go of all reason.

It's not just the sentiment of mind control through repetition and peer pressure, it's the ill-educated and backwards thinking and the intensity that they try to sell it with.

When the hairs stand up on the back of your neck, that's not the Holy Spirit, it's your internal warning system telling you to flee danger.

Q: Why do governments continue with experiments if there's not much truth to them?
A: Men who stare at goats (a few ppl fooled by ideas and passion can easily consume some government resources)
A: Magicians (show the audience one thing while you do another)
A: Bias perception (Misinterpretation of the results)
A: Progression (Legitimate achievements in technological advancements)

Either pick what makes you comfortable (mentally lazy), or utilize your critical thinking (worth breeding)

A rational mind staring into darkness will begin to see shapes and movements that aren't really there. It's due to mental cheat sheets, where the mind attempts to understand that which it doesn't by using current knowledge, assumptions, imagination and internal values/preferences/emotions (gross simplification).

An irrational mind more easily sees whatever is familiar/preferred to be seen. Those who stare long enough can become very difficult to persuade with an alternative view or bring back to a more rational position. (it's why teaching young humans 'what' to think is so much more defining than 'how' to think, re stubborn beliefs)

Yes humans are capable of some seriously great feats, but if you genuinely think that weather can be "controlled" to the extent he's referring to (while disregarding the far greater impacts that would occur globally for every smaller influence) then you're not likely to listen to reason, rather then continue to perceive that which you're predetermined to think.

Also it might help to listen to how he's making his points. It's psychological warfare, he's seeding you and getting you to defeat your own rational thought, poorly i might add, but still the attempt is there.
Why? By only making statements, your 100,000's year old critical thinking system will instinctively aim to challenge every point that isn't previously accepted (like how a cat instinctively chases a running non-threat target), so he mixes in the questions, the same questions, as repetition is the best form of learning (mind-raping)

And just to fuck with yas: if you 'knew' something crazy to be true, and as you spoke about it you could hear the crazy.. how would you convince a friend, a parent and a stranger?

@ChaosEngine

I will venture that "socialization" of the means of production can remain separate from their "nationalization," and also their only possible compliance with non-aggression while contributing to free-market prosperity, comes -- if by "means of production" we mean, not the built factories, railroads, whatever, but the allowance of such building. That is, if we socialize "intellectual property."

As such, patents plain and simple legally restrict "the means of production" to those who own them. Socialism, when it comes to IP, does make sense. It makes no sense, however, when it comes to scarce goods.

In this regard, Wilhelm Reich's "Mass Psychology of Fascism" (PDF) is a good book to read on this subject as it goes a long way towards explaining the mass appeal of the state. He may focus too much on irrational drives, and remains stuck in untenable syndicalist ideas, but here we must distinguish thymological irrationality from praxeological "irrationality." Praxeologically, humans are always rational, never irrational.

For this, I think it'd be interesting to put Reich's theory next to "public choice" theory for a more complete picture, but then, we'd need to have an intelligent discourse rather than the name-calling and epithets I've come to expect.

While this may all seem rather academic, this discourse has many practical uses, like understanding the chances of reversing social trends towards statism, etc. since it seems to me that a Manichean system, with a mix of chaos and order dominating, and periodic tilts towards one end (chaos, nazism, communism) or the other (order, rationalism, anarchy), can serve social orders like a yin-yang with neither pole ever dominating totally or for long.

Might I suggest to you and @lucky760 "the wages of fear"? My favorite movie, and the introduction of Super Mario (oddly I'm only kind of joking about that) in the 50's. It's about bums in Mexico getting a job driving trucks of nitro glycerin through the jungle to a burning oil well. Remade as "sorcerer" in 77 with Roy Schieder (see the original first) it's still my favorite movie, due largely to the last 30 seconds of the film (I won't spoil it). It's a bit of a slow start, like many older movies are, but it gains speed quite nicely. I still love it even though it's French (and I hold onto my irrational hatred of the French because, well, you gotta hate someone!)
Hope you like it if you try it.
Newt

@lantern53

ah my friend.
you seem to have fallen into the propaganda trap.
allow enoch to chat with you for a bit.

are you comfy? need a drink? coffee? a beer?

ok,then let us begin

this is not a political ideology.
this is not right nor left.(seriously limiting terms anyways).

this is about the full picture.

so let us discuss WHAT propaganda actual is,rather than what we are TOLD it is.
propaganda is simply manipulated information presented in a way to appeal to our irrational and emotional response rather than our rational and reasonable.

when i use the term "manipulated" i am not inferring or implying an outright conspiracy (though often-times it may possibly be a conspiracy) but rather a set goal to illicit the desired response.

and there is always an element of truth in propaganda but the truth being presented is controlled and manipulated.which is apparent in your commentary.

corporations use this tactic and we call it mass marketing but the first usage was that of the state to control its own citizenry.america being the major and first to pioneer this tactic.see:edward bernaise and the council of propaganda (later changed to the council of public relations).

so let us break down your examples which i assume are an attempt by you to discredit the assertions in dr wasfi's speech in this video.

1.to point out the crimes against humanity is a straw man argument.
it is irrelevant.
it is a last ditch effort by the american government to excuse and/or validate an illegal war of aggression:
a.no weapons of mass destruction
b.no connection to al qaeda
c.almost 1 trillion lost (literally,they cant account for that money)

so the american government points to the atrocities of saddam hussein and says "look! look at what a bad person he is"!

SQUIRREL!

which brings us to your next point.

2.the atrocities you are referring to were well know when saddam was a paid participant by multiple government agencies.
let me say that again for you:
saddams atrocities were WELL known and was on the american government payroll.
did saddam gas the kurds?------yes
who sold him the gas components?---we did.

so when my government,in a last ditch effort to absolve its complicity in the wreckage that is iraq by pointing to the awful and horrific acts saddam perpetrated on his own people as somehow making the invasion of iraq a righteous act is utter..and complete..hypocrisy.

they KNEW what he was doing and did nothing because it was politically expedient for them to do so.they wished to corral iran and the ends justified the means.see:Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard

there are many MANY accounts where the american government turned a blind eye to the suffering of other nation-states citizens because it did not align with our interests.

i find the whole situation morally repugnant and it angers me even further when i see the propaganda twisting my fellow countrymen into believing this is somehow a morally just way to deal with despots,tyrants,zealots.

when it was MY country who put them in power in the first place!

the rationalizations are so deeply cynical and hypocritical that it creates an almost vacuum of cognitive dissonance.

and this is my main point in regards to your commentary.
it is a rationalization given to you by those who wish to continue to oppress,dominate and control those who are powerless.

it gives a semblance of morality where there is none.

because if we took your commentary to its logical conclusion:that sometimes war is necessary to rid the world of "evil" (an arbitrary term based on perspective),then why are we not in those countries that ALSO oppress,kill,maim,torture and immiserate their citizens?

answer:because it does not serve the interests of this government.

so the only usage of emotional heart string pulling is to give americans a sense of moral superiority,while not dealing with the actual reality.

you are being manipulated my friend.
and they have given you a convenient myth to hold onto.

by my commentary i am not dismissing the great works of my country nor am i saying that my country is inherently evil.
i served my country and did my duty.

but i also will not turn a blind eye to the reality on the ground just because i find that information..uncomfortable.

many times the truth is uncomfortable and it takes courage to look at it with clear eyes and a critical mind.

i always stick to the axiom:governments lie

as for your nazi reference,
i invoke godwins law.
the death camps were not even a known reality till the war was almost over and were not the reasons for the war in the first place.
so the context is irrelevant.

as always,
eyes open...
and stay sharp.

@lantern53 keepin it frosty since 1982.stay awesome my man

Way to go, increase the dogs irrational behaviour rather than calming it down. When/if the dog loses control and attacks, no doubt they will be like countless others who say; "I have no idea what made the dog do this."..MORONS.