>> ^marbles:

@dgandhi
Maybe I was unclear. Your incoherent use of quotations has little to no context regarding the video.


Okay, one at a time then(again):

"objectivism" is a ref to the content, It is in quote because Rand's name for her ideology is a troll, and should not be taken seriously, it is relevant to the vid in that the vid describes an ideology indistinguishable from Rand's.

marxist axiom "labor has the right to all it produces" is a ref to the bit that starts at 1:45, that claims legitimacy on the same grounds as Marx, except that the basis of the claim is false, because nothing in the modern world is not already owned.

Objects existing in a "state of nature" is a necessarily prerequisite for the ability to own your work, that exactly matched the vids claim at 1:58, this is also quote for absurdity, not because it is a direct quote from the vid.

>> ^marbles:
False, and false. Liberty was a philosophy long before Rand, Marx, or Engels.

This video was not made pre-Marx. The basis for property rights made is indistinguishable from Marx, until the twist of it never being possible, and therefor not a coherent basis, is thrown in at the end.

>> ^marbles:

Your 3 quotes have no reference in the video.

I am not quoting the video at this point, I am referencing the video, there is a difference. I am also using reasonably clear names for positions the video creator takes, not typing out a transcript.

>> ^marbles:
Life is not arbitrary. Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits. Tangible items that we refer to as property are only representations of property.

You say this, but what do you mean?

I am alive, and I have the power to make choices and take actions, these are not rights they are facts.

Others have the power to act and make choices as well, this is simply a fact.

Sometimes people decide not to mess with each other, they form a society and grant each other contractual rights that serve their best interests as they understand them.

Fee simple property is one of these arrangements where a group of people agree to protect privileged access to some resource to particular people, this too is only a right by contract.

The Randian trick of trying to conflate the contract with the fact, and somehow make it universal and immutable, is cute in its naivete, but really has no basis in reality.

The entire self ownership argument is based on the premise that self directing entities can be owned, and therefor you must own yourself to stop anybody else from owning you. If we dispense with the whole idea of owning (because it's silly) or even just with the idea of owning people, there is no need to own yourself. You, and everybody else can just be un-owned, and un-ownable (but not un-pwnable). There you go, one great (and contrived) moral quandary averted, you're welcome.

>> ^marbles:
False. The quote from the video is “Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values, rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal”. The opposite suggests you give up your right to ANY opinion.


Okay fine, I disregard your silly property claims, and I will make use of all the things you claim to own whenever I wish, since I am perfectly within my rights to not be constrained by your threat to initiate force when I use these things.

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.

@dgandhi

Maybe I was unclear. Your incoherent use of quotations has little to no context regarding the video.

Re: This is a perfect example of the absurdity of "objectivism".
The premise is the basically marxist axiom "labor has the right to all it produces", but with some arbitrary caveat about that only being true when the things worked on are "in a state of nature".

False, and false. Liberty was a philosophy long before Rand, Marx, or Engels. Your 3 quotes have no reference in the video.

Re: The "Voluntary Mutual Consent" principle, is also similarly constrained by the unexplained arbitrary limitation, that you are required to consent to some arbitrary property system, of course with no coherent way to decide which property system is the "right" one. This "principle" like the "state of nature" special case, must be taken on faith.

Life is not arbitrary. Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits. Tangible items that we refer to as property are only representations of property. Life is constrained by “property systems”. That’s because most property systems exist so one group of people can steal from another. Voluntary mutual consent exists beyond any property system. 4 quotes, only 1 reference, no context.

Re: "The Marketplace of Values" is similarly not open to any disagreement or experimentation with regards to market and property systems. We are only allowed to experiment once we have given up the right to hold a contrary opinion.

False. The quote from the video is “Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values, rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal”. The opposite suggests you give up your right to ANY opinion.

I think you're looking for the word "empathy" when writing REspect.

>>> That's correct. REspect is the treatment resulting from empathy.

1) Strawman attack. Nothing in the letter suggests what you're accusing it of.

>>> The Bozo in question wrote, "I have nothing but contempt for you (the religious)." Therefore I would not expect REspect or empathy from such an individual. He's set himself up as an enemy, needlessly, I might add. Look at all the angry responses here. Probably what he was after.

2) Atheists are smarter than religious people within the domains mentioned.

>>> What "domains" are we considering? Science? Famous Scientists Who Believed in God There are plenty of dumb atheists as well as dumb religious people. There are also atheists who have not a whit of curiosity about the universe.

3)You have two points here that have nothing to do one with the other.

They're close cousins.

First: most religions (including the worst of the lot, i.e. the Abrahamic monotheisms) do exclude all other religions.

Bozo said "you realize all the OTHER religions are wrong" in blanket condemnation.

The farther one moves from this exclusivity, the closer one gets to a religion being a philosophy (e.g. Buddhism, Jainism), or woo (e.g. New Age).

You forget Hinduism, a dynamic, evolving faith older then Christianity, with billions of gods. It accepts other paths as legit. But even as Hinduism is weighted down with a caste system, Christianity has broken barriers around the world across all nations and races and even within itself.

Second: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” ~ Steven Weinberg

Weinberg needs to read up on communism, a much more potent enemy of human dignity and worth. Communist countries are run by a--holes who believe they are the only true gods. Religion can be abusive, insulting and dehumanizing in the wrong hands, just like politics and language. However, there is no atheist tradition declaring 'All life has value.' Einstein once said 'Either everything is a miracle or nothing is.' The lack of sanctity endemic to atheism places it on the side of nothing being miraculous. It doesn't mean atheists are bad people, it means they have no reference outside of their own feelings, which leads us to...

4) Care to explain how atheism is delusional?

I said the atheist is delusional, not atheism, and I'm not referring to what atheists think of deities at all.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it? This means you and I can rationalize anything at any time. We lie to ourselves ALL THE TIME to preserve our own egos and pride, with a subconscious dominantly seeking pleasure or avoiding pain. A single human is not even a unified consciousness but a collection of competing desires and savage impulses. It's a miracle in itself that anyone ever stops to look outside of themselves.

The atheist has as much right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as anyone else, but I'm still siding with Ben Franklin: If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it?

Thanks for reading that long long loooooong post. It certainly came from my heart!

I didn't see the comment stream as "backlash." I fully expected it. This is what humans do, it seems -- lash out, misinterpret, cherry pick one sentence and analyze it to death out of context, extrapolate, and build themselves up into fake and real outrage. Happens all the time on comment streams of longer length.

I include myself in that description, but I am trying to wean myself from doing that. It isn't productive. I know I am not 100% successful, but I do it less than I used to. I'm still learning to recognize the behavior in myself. I have learned a lot from being on the Sift.

And I think you are right -- this place is mostly guys and I don't care how old they are, the kid is still inside there and he wants to play. Women have been called a "civilizing" influence -- I prefer that idea to the negativity of the idea of Political Correctness -- and the guys are absolutely right. It sucks the spontaneous fun of reacting in the moment.

I think the best example of that is that horrible C Punch vid that Lasurus posted. http://videosift.com/video/CUNt-PUNCH

The first comment. Now that is honesty -- he knows there is something distasteful about this vid and he finds it funny. I say good on him for just telling truth.

I always bring up Louis CK as a perfect example of the lie that is Political Correctness. Here's a guy who has said some of the most objectively offensive things I have ever heard, but I am never offended. Why? Because he tells the truth. Always. If he finds something that is objectively speaking distasteful, he says -- man, this is gross and I like it anyway. It is the bone deep honesty of it that steps him back from the edge.

AND. It is tiring to keep that up when all you want to do is watch videos and react, though. I get it.

I was very interested in how you reacted to the C punch vid (with the title that offended me.) I have a couple of fantastic male friends who are not the "normal" kind of guy. Heterosexual but gentle. To hear their tales of being bullied and abused, of their struggles to find their way to be themselves in our culture that is so abusive towards its men, that only allows one image for what it means to be masculine.... it's enough to break your heart. I heard echos of that in your post. I know you say that you felt protective towards women -- well, I may be projecting my friends' experience, I may be off base, but I heard echos of my male friends' struggles in your outrage.

I know that this place is mostly male. I come here because of the science (there used to be more, but there is still some), and the smarts, and the generally progressive attitudes, and dft and blankfist having the same argument over and over again.

I believe it is inappropriate for me to "squash" the boyish fun -- if this were a predominantly female site, the men would be expected to respect the culture of that site.

But they also aren't here alone. And that first poster on lasurus' linked vid KNEW it wasn't appropriate, that a line had been crossed.

Blah blah blah.

I am going to the new Pirates movie now. (Saw Thor last night -- man, was that stupid. But then, I don't know the comics, so maybe it was actually very good. I had no reference. I did recognize Stan Lee though....)



In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Very nice post

>> ^bcglorf:

Nope! no-one addressed his first question at all.
Provide a single answer for why the planes where needed if the explosives were already planted. NOBODY gave a motive for that, none of your links gives a motive for it either.
we've already determined that whatever evidence you guys provide is 100% truth and accurate and any links provided to the contrary are false and unbelievable.
No, we've explained WHY our sources were more reliable. You and previously swapped scientific journal analysis of WTC dust. I said mine was better because the scientists in mine collected their own samples, directly and analyzed them immediately. Meanwhile yours collected their dust be making a public request years after my report was already published, and then just took the word of the individuals that the dust was authenticate. They then further, arbitrarily, chose to only analyze the privately submitted samples that had strange looking red chips in them.
So yes, I consider the paper I cited much more reliable than yours. The difference is I've explained specifically why, meanwhile you seem to have no interest in figuring out why the two reports contradict one another.


We aren't discussing dust in this conversation... Nor am I discussing whether the WTC 1&2 buildings were brought down by a controlled demolition. I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact. He's saying they were wrong, or their testing was inaccurate, or they are only referring to the actual collisions and not the fires that ensued after the collision, which is incorrect. They most certainly do address that issue. Meaning I don't buy the whole "jet fuel caused the collapse" Theory 100%.

You never answered my question: Which actual facts are you referring to? The ones that are incorrect about the size, speed, and fuel capacity of the jets of that time for instance? Those actual facts?

I didn't take the time to continue reading after that since that wasn't actual facts or truthful. I'm sure there's more items on his site based on "actual facts" http://www.debunking911.com/ that are incorrect as well as they cite no references to their "debunking" information at all. At least the site I provide gives references to where they get their information.

I also think you are reading more into his first question than there is. He asked what was to gain from this. He did not specify what was to gain from smashing jets into the building and rigging it with explosives. You are putting words into his mouth.

For reference...

NIST report and press conference:
Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes [thermite] and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down," he said. "And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.

FEMA:
The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 degrees C (1,800 degrees F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel...

FEMA:
Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700 to 800 degrees C (1290 - 1470 degrees F).

NIST:
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent [***NOTE: no reference] of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

Modulus of Elasticity for Steel:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_773.html

What is concerning is that thermite was rule out because of the noise, and that 1000 lbs would be needed.

Also, no one has explained the UL testing on the steel for 6 hrs at 1000C?

Finally, what is troubling is that softening girders causeing collapse, fine, steel is weakened at 1400degF, but the core wouldn't fall. Certainly wouldn't break apart.

>> ^dag:

The argument is that part of the Wiki is about documenting the culture and history of VideoSift.
Many of the changes, events and controversies that happen on the Sift are initiated by - or related to Sifters. If the rule is no reference to our members- we'll need to sanitise the content to keep it fairly anonymous - which IMO is not very well aligned with the spirit of the community - being very "people focused".

>> ^Deano:
Not even sure it's relevant in a wiki. Why would you bother with user info? Everyone's got a profile on the main site, use that.
Isn't the wiki an extended help/reference site?



That seems a bit wooly and meta to me. Why not, as has been the case, allow the culture to grow out of what the site does on a daily basis? And let the ethnographers worry about that kind of crap.

Maybe the question is this; what actual purpose would this serve and to whom would it be actually useful?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The argument is that part of the Wiki is about documenting the culture and history of VideoSift.

Many of the changes, events and controversies that happen on the Sift are initiated by - or related to Sifters. If the rule is no reference to our members- we'll need to sanitise the content to keep it fairly anonymous - which IMO is not very well aligned with the spirit of the community - being very "people focused".


>> ^Deano:

Not even sure it's relevant in a wiki. Why would you bother with user info? Everyone's got a profile on the main site, use that.
Isn't the wiki an extended help/reference site?

I do love how they keep referring to it as 'congress' who didn't pass it... no reference what so ever to the top republicans who filibustered the bill... it was 'congress' all of it...

Right... I mean he isn't wrong... but it's still pretty clear who signs his checks....

I hate it when I upvote something only to realise it's propaganda half way through.

No wonder there are no references made.

Is this fixed with the right embed?
There's no reference to masturbation in it.
Great clip though.

I'd love to see the video that was originally sifted.
*discuss

sigh. been done perhaps...a million times, and no, reference to pot doesn't make thing automatically funny. to me anyways.

I was somewhat disturbed by the content of your above referenced link. While many of the references to past events are not a surprise to me (it's well documented that both Anglican and RC missionaries committed acts that can only be described as atrocities and/or cultural genocide) Annet's references starting in 1969 just did not ring true based on my personal interactions within First Nations groups from Alaska to Victoria and commencing around 1973/74. As a result I've spent the last couple of hours trying to verify any of his statements with negative results. What I have found is that first nations groups in Manitoba which have been hit particularly hard by H1N1 received body bags as part of normal medical resupply and are in fact demanding supplies of Tamiflu and to be prioritized when new vaccines become available. The opening reference to the Ahousaht reserve appears to be totally bogus as well. The Indian Act does not require on reserve Indians to submit to medical experimentation and bill C-6 has nothing to do with H1N1 vaccinations, but rather is " the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act". I have reviewed the entire Act and found no reference at all to H1N1 or vaccines compulsory or otherwise.

It appears to me that Kevin Annet is basically a loon with some personal axe to grind and is not averse to making up "facts" to support his position.

imstellar: Picked one of your links at random. Went to the naturalnews site. There is no evidence offered except for a youtube video (I admittedly didn't watch it because I don't have flash available right now). Additionally, on the exact same day, the exact same guy posted another article saying that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000646_AIDS_HIV_medical_myths.html

For the healthy.net article: Again, no references given. But a quick Googling yielded a refutation of there being any conclusive connection, with, gasp, peer-reviewed research cited. http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/SV40

It looks like the Baxter one is true. It doesn't look like the virus was actually found in anything that was actually going to be administered to a human, though. Negligence, not malfeasance.

Why is there still no reference to the South Park episode "Jared has Aides"?