He talked about his hard life, but he sang about the criminal injustice system we got here which criminalizes race and locks up a 1/4 of all black men

>> ^renatojj:

@vaire2ube tell you what, hand over the overwhelming power government gave to bankers to someone else, say farmers, workers, teachers, nuns, it doesn't matter, it will be abused eventually and social injustice will happen in a large scale. Will you be hating on nuns too for screwing up the country's finances?
Bravo, sir. I don't think I've seen a trainwreck that went off the rails as spectacularly as this little bit of (il)logical gymnastics.

@vaire2ube tell you what, hand over the overwhelming power government gave to bankers to someone else, say farmers, workers, teachers, nuns, it doesn't matter, it will be abused eventually and social injustice will happen in a large scale. Will you be hating on nuns too for screwing up the country's finances?

You don't resent corporations or the power they earned. Like you said, they're not inherently evil. You resent the power corporations don't deserve that they can only get from government.

Why are bankers greedy? Because greed and fear of loss balance each other out, it's like that for every human being. Bankers don't fear loss because they know they can always get bailed out, so their greed goes rampant.

If a government agency gave you a "license to kill" with no repercussions whatsoever, pretty soon you'd be offing people left and right like a sociopath too (mostly bankers and CEOs, right? ).

Regulations are crafted by big corporations that lobby government. So why would you resort to the problem to supply the solution?

I agree that government is the solution, the solution being "protect our freedoms". Because the minute they do things like give a central bank monopoly over the money supply, that's taking away our freedoms and handing it over in the form of unjust power to some institution.

BTW, I'm sure GlaxoSmithKline isn't going for the "badass" reputation of killing people. Three billion seems like a pretty steep fine, no matter how much money they're making.

Liberals and socialists are always blind to the hidden costs and longer term consequences of their well intended actions.

Then poverty, waste, and recession ensues and they're unable to connect the dots. It doesn't register in their reality as anything other than a convenient failure of capitalism and the free market.

I also want healthcare to be accessible. The best way you can make something accessible is by reducing its costs and nurturing an environment of competition, not by forcing everyone to subsidize a single provider, the government, to hand it out for "free". That will only raise costs for the service, and even though some poor might benefit temporarily, the cost to society will be greater, and those costs will come back to hurt the very poor this bill intends to help.

This healthcare bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruling is a joke, and it gives government more power to carry out social injustice.

Doing petty injustices to Shell almost seems to put them in the moral high ground, somewhere back in my lizard brain. This is fail on fail.>> ^hpqp:

Ugh, I hate hoaxes like this. a) they set you up for disappointment and b) they make the subject matter appear trivial and the perps (and more importantly, the side they align with) petty overgrown teenagers. Lies and fraud are the worst weapons against liars and fraudsters. /rant >> ^Hive13:
Sorry, but it is a hoax:
http://gawker.com/5916661/hilarious-video-of-shell-
oil-party-disaster-is-fake-unfortunately

If you are interested in this type of stuff, I recommend reading about Charles Smith (wiki it) and this blog:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/

Go back to the 2007 archives and the Goudge Inquiry and read about how many lives one doctor ruined because of his incompetence (literally had 0 training in forensics) and arrogance (claimed that he did).

I work in DNA and it is amazing how much injustice can happen even WITH DNA evidence. For example, an analyst checked off "positive" match instead of "negative" by mistake, and that went to court.

I don't think I would go as far as saying to steal is morally the best choice, but rationally the stronger choice. If 2 gods incapable of lying were on staged, and promised to share, that is the most moral position. Well actually, IMO, 2 people that CAN choose to lie deciding not to is more morally pretty, so 2 humans choosing share because they want to do the right thing is the best moral outcome, and also the hardest to achieve. And to that end, your suggesting that stealing becomes more moral starts to gain a little traction in real world human transactions, but it only works if you can get people to act in a certain way...so it is morally dependent on the actions of other people, which is not a good place for your morality. All it takes is a type person Rorschach, a moral high grounder whom wants to punish injustice to ruin the plan, as in the movie version of watchmen. The conflict of justice with fairness makes a TRUE solution imposible to have. This is one of the moral problems that lead me away from my faith, Justice and Goodness being incompatible in the way they cary themselves out. For instace, a person whom wants to not do the "right" thing (share) but make sure a person that does the wrong thing get screwed (push for stealing by stealing ensuring that both get nothing) is incompatible with the Goodness version where share is the only option. The conflict between "Love" and "Justice" meant, to me, that there is no way to be loyal to both at the same time, and anyone who says they are is a lier. Anyway, didn't want to drag the conversation here per say, but this was a key kind of conversation I had with myself in a very similar chain of events as to this gameshow...a showdown of ideas, ideals, and morals.

>> ^RedSky:

Lol, last time this show got posted I suggested the exact same idea.
>> ^RedSky:
Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.


>> ^RedSky:
@direpickle
I admit the idea does hinge on being able to convince the other fully of your actions, but if you can, then you'll effectively have changed their payoff to steal = nothing, share = possibility of something. If you can see you've evidently convinced them, you could even pull a fast one and instead choose to share thus saving you time and effort! I guess it's kind of contradictory to effectively act benevolent through authority but in a limited case like this, where you can reduce the uncertainty of an undesirable outcome considerably, I think it's fully worth it.

@dystopianfuturetoday I'd like to help you visualize what I understand a free market is or ought to be. When you say free markets are impossible, I tend to compare that to someone saying, "free speech is impossible" while holding an extreme or maybe unrealistic interpretation of what free speech ought to be as well.

Imagine when freedom of speech was first proposed, "What if we had a society where people could say whatever they want without fear of censorship or oppression?". Before we had a country where freedom of speech was in the first Ammendment of its Constitution, I'm pretty sure we didn't have freedom of speech anywhere, or mostly in any time in history. Someone could have replied, "A free speech society is impossible, which is why one has never existed, and why you were unable to come up with any working examples". Sure, because there would almost always be some asshole, usually a king, a despot or church, telling people what they could or could not say, and punishing them for it.

Now, do we enjoy absolute freedom of speech today? Not at all, and I'm fine with that. There are laws against libel, hate speech, obscenity, incitement to commit crimes, etc., which are all restrictions imposed on that very freedom.

However, all things considered, I think freedom of speech is mostly free. I don't know of anyone who advocates "restricted speech" or "highly regulated speech" as an ideal. More importantly, whenever censorship is reported or witnessed, everyone is instantly indignant and sometimes outraged, because we are all aware of how essential freedom of speech is to a free society, a freedom that should be cherished and protected.

Now let's take a look at the dynamics of free speech in society.

Just because people can say whatever they want, doesn't mean there won't be millions of people lying, deceiving each other, spreading ideologies that are COMPLETELY WRONG, etc.

Does that mean we should have laws banning ideas that are wrong? Not easy to do, because it is common sense that no one has absolute authority over truth, so such laws would hardly be fair.

Instead, we resort to letting ideas compete, letting people select for themselves what is true or not. That might doom society to eternal stupidity and ignorance or to a gradual process where truths will be preferred, and lies will tend to be exposed or ignored. Which outcome do you think is more likely? It takes time, but a free society matures with such freedoms. When abuses happen, society learns and deals with them without immediately resorting to laws and restrictions, because that would be considered censorship, and, therefore, usually unfair.

Now when it comes to economic freedom, liberals treat it as a whole different ball game, when I don't think it should be. First off, "free markets" = obscenity. They learn to understand it like you do, "absolutely free of government intervention, chaos everywhere, society is doomed", when in fact the proponents of free markets recognize that the State is necessary to enforce contracts, punish fraud and protect private property.

Liberals are mostly influenced by the socialist interpretation of capitalism as an inherently unfair system. Whenever any perceived abuse happens in an economy, they see it as resulting from an imbalance of economic power, so they rush to demand laws and regulations to forcibly correct them.

How about letting these abuses happen, and let society learn to deal with them, select them, and evolve? Just like what happens with free speech. Sure, if it's blatant fraud, theft, breach of contract, etc. the State can and should step in. Otherwise, let people come up with their own solutions. It will be a painful process, but it's better to let a free society mature by itself than oppressing it into behaving well.

Besides, if you think about it, politicians aren't any better than anyone at judging what economic practices are right or wrong. So the laws they make are usually unfair. They have the same kind of presumptuousness of someone who would claim authority over truth, and want to create laws censoring "wrong" ideas. Like keynesian economists who try to plan and steer economies because they have little theories where they claim it's smarter to use other people's money than letting people make decisions with their own money.

We would never put up with people trying to engineer society/culture through censorship. Why do we put up with that when it comes to economics?

About the thought experiment (hoping it's not a trick question), I don't see why there should be a limit on how much property a person can own, as long as the property is honestly obtained.

I don't think it's an injustice when someone owns more than others, maybe there are other factors to be considered? Forcibly redistributing property is usually more unfair than just letting society deal with any problem arising from someone having property that others want or need.

Dang, i wish i had an hour to spare to listen to some homosexual complain about some personal injustice.

If you want to go have gay sex, go ahead.

Just don't make me part of it.

Okay, so I had wrote out a response and saved it in MS Word--and it got deleted somehow on my comp before I posted it. Then I gave up...because that took a long time to write out thoughtfully.... But now that have the free time, I will attempt it again. Plus, I have OCD...

So;

1-Haven't we all? And even if he hasn't, I certainly am not the man to judge.
2-I do assume he would be neutral on race. The problem is his convictions, right or wrong, ere on the side of a dogma-like belief system. His ideals of "liberty" (Whatever that means) above all else is neutral; unfortunately America is not neutral and would turn those ideas into racial superiority somehow. (I.e., he is to stupid and would advocate "freedom" that would open the door for employers to be racist and oppressive, I thinks...)
3-I think John Edward's cheating on his cancer-afflicted wife is far worse than manipulating for power. Nearly every single politician has in some manner stoked the race fires--but not all have betrayed those who loved them personally. Look at the Zimmerman bs and the stoking of that fire pit. America is one big stoke factory whether we like it or not...
4-You don't need to forgive me for being racist, and you don't need to forgive Paul if isn't any longer a racist. In fact, in my case where open and malicious racism was instilled in me early--you should thank me for figuring out a better way. I don't need pitied with forgiveness...and I wish America would stop putting so much emphasis on forgiveness and just move on...
5-Nope... Read 5...
6-Its because its one thing to betray the public--its another to betray those who have loved you. In certain countries or the military Edwards would have been punished with severe prison time or even death. Why? Because such a barbaric betrayal is hard to forgive. A different kind of animal. One is psychotic, the other is opportunistic asshole-ism.

And then

1-When you find yourself smiling at your friend who you have hung out with for over a year, thinking to yourself how much lower he is than you because of his skin, then regretting those thoughts--I attribute it to racism. When you think that his pride in his Hispanic background is nasty--racism... When you try but can't care about his plights of racial injustice, when they stir nothing in your heart--racism.

I am trying to work on it, but that's all I can do. Try. That and be the damned nicest guy I can be, and treat him fairly as a human being should be treated...guess that's all I can do.

2-People can change and they change all the time. I used to hate gays, as I have noted, but now I do not. However, that is not saying I am capable of any change. For example, I doubt I will ever be gay. But who knows--it just isn't happening any time soon. I am more Buddhist in my ways of thinking---it will either change or it will not, and we will either live with it or will not. But try to be the best person you can with what you have and make it the best you can.

>> ^NetRunner:

@Lawdeedaw I think there are several problems with that rant:

1. It assumes Ron Paul has changed
   
2. It assumes Ron Paul would be "neutral" on race
   
3. It assumes John Edwards cheating on his wife is worse than stoking racial animosity for personal gain
   
4. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul still denies having made them in the first place
   
5. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul hasn't really acted as though this sort of thing is something you need to apologize for and be contrite about
   
6. It expects us to have not forgiven John Edwards, even though he's publicly confessed, and been both contrite and repentant
   

Holy shit, this coming from one of the most politically biased individuals to ever puke up worthless polarized talking points on the sift.

Ignore story about murder and injustice for minorities.
Raise hell about "startling new details" in the Obama birth certificate saga.

Riiight...

You and everyone like you are demented.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Best thing we can all do is shut the news off, ignore the media, and not listen to a single word that anyone says about this whole thing. Let the courts do what they do, and stop getting sucked into these ideological knife fights that are clearly politically motivated.

As I said a long time ago in the first video about the original story, two things:

One, as is said above as well, Zimmerman to me in some way has a connection with the police. I just can't fathom why the cops are sticking their necks (and city officials) out this much for this guy, unless they are all racist as well--possible, but doubtful that they ALL would be.

Two, Zimmerman will get assassinated over this if he does not stand trial (I said this the very first time we heard of this story and as you look at all the angry faces, you know this is inevitable and true). In fact I think you could even go one step farther by now and also say that there will be riots as well. I completely understand the frustration and outrage, as I'm outraged about this myself and my color isn't the one being targeted...

Not just Zimmerman must pay for this crime anymore. The police and officials directly involved are staining their hands in blood as well, everyday this injustice continues.

>> ^ant:

>> ^siftbot:

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting I like Turtles..


But do YOU like turtles?


Just another meat bag. With a shell on top.