16) propaganda
17) they should be, most of my american friends are very optimistic about the future right now
18) this is really interesting - basically supports my theory that covid is doing less economic damage than the daily news would suggest
19) and 20) good news for rich people

So what does this say about Trump - he let the economy do its thing, did not start wars and helped rich people.
If he did not have other failings this would not be too bad. But presenting this as something extra is.. uninformed?

I have to say I had an interesting few minutes of reading up on these things and thanks Newt for your insights, and Bob for the initial ideas, I know a number of people who believe this type of propaganda and its always interesting to try to find out what statistic or news article is being misrepresented.

All I can hear is the sound of straws being grasped at trying to find a way that this doesn't look good for Trump. I'm hearing the same thing everywhere, what is wrong with people?

Look I'm no Trump fan (I despise Hillary but then people who start wars generally piss me off), but can't we all just admit he did a good thing? I for one hope he does more of it.

This is a mindset of a child.

"Pussed out"? Presidents aren't the ones on the front lines. There's nothing courageous about sending other men to die.

But you know who really did puss out? Your boy Trump, when he dodged the draft. He was young, strong, and played football. But when it came time to serve... "boo, I have heel spurts!" Pussy.

And I thought we didn't want to start new wars... Or are we back on starting wars? With you right-wingers, every position changes with the wind.

And, out of all things, you wanted Obama to start an actual war with Russia??? Do you understand the calamity that a war with Russia would cause?

...And I thought your boy likes Putin and wants to restore relations... So Obama should've literally gotten us into a war with Russia, but Trump is great because he's tight with Putin and wants to restore relations? There's that flip-flopping from right wingers again... You people really don't think.

Some movies just need you to not be 100% logical. Actually a lot.
Ive seen it and it was actually pretty good. Reminded me of similar movies from the 80s and they did well implementing that into a modern movie.

But I guess if you live in a world where so called peace loving people (actually nobel peace prize winners) start wars, break international laws, support terrorists, blame other parties that werent even involved until the end for the whole war and who are just trying to defend a sovereign country, and then bring those people, they brought war to, into their own countries out of "humanitarianism", then a movie like this just cant make sense at all.

I agree in principle. I don't see how it could work out in practice, though. If we embargo Libya, it is ineffective because someone else will buy their oil, and effectively the only thing we impact is the economy and the plight of it's citizens, as we have clearly seen with Saddam. This will lead to further claims of racism because the people of the country are being made to suffer.

So, I suppose we could blockage them to really enforce their isolation. But unless we are willing to sink russian and chinese ships trading with them, all we are doing is issuing empty threats. And clearly if we do start sinking those ships, we will start wars and again be called racist.

The only alternative you leave, is to completely ignore their suffering, hope that nobody else intervenes for their own ends, and await the eventual overthrow of the government, which could take hundreds of years. This seems like the least empathetic and most disregarding approach imaginable. Being so afraid to do bad that one refuses to try to do good.

I think the most moral approach would perhaps be the most chauvinist of all. I'm thinking about Japan post WWII. But then I never bought into the post modern nihilistic view.

Coming at this from the perspective of academic philosophy I think the truth of the matter is ultimately very simple (however the details can be almost infinitely complex and diverse in how we apply them).

Simply put it appears impossible to demonstrate any kind of ultimate ethical authority or perfect ethical principles objectively.

One can certainly assert them, but they would always be subject to the problem of underdetermination (no facts, only interpretations) and as such subjective.

Even strictly humanist systems of ethics like concequentialism and deontology are at their core based on some arbitrary assumption or rule e.g. minimising harm, maximising pleasure, setting a universal principle, putting the concequences before the intention etc. etc.

As such I think the only honest and objective absolute moral principle is "Nothing is true and everything is permitted" (the law of the strong). All else can only truly be supported by preference and necessity. We do not "Know" moral truth, we only appear to interpret and create it.

This being the case it is the opinion of myself and a great many post modern philosophers that ethics is essentially a specialised branch of aesthetics. An important one still, but none the less it is still a study of preference and beauty rather than one of epistemological truth.

By this logic one could certainly argue that the organic "Humanist" approach to ethics and morality as outlined in this video seems infinitely preferable to any sort of static absolute moral authority.

If morality is at its core just a measure of the degree of thought and extrapolation one applies to maximising preferable outcomes then the "humanist" seems like they would have an inherent advantage in their potential capacity to discover and refine ever more preferable principles and outcomes. A static system by its very nature seems less able to maximise it's own moral preferences when presented by ever changing circumstances.


However I'm about to kind of undermine that very point by suggesting that ultimately what we are calling "humanism" here is universal. i.e. that even the most static and dictatorial ethical system (e.g. Wahhabism or Christian fundamentalism) is still ultimately an expression of aesthetic preference and choice.

It is aesthetically preferable to a fundamentalist to assert the absolute moral authority and command of God and while arguably less developed and adaptable (and thus less preferable by most Humanist standards), it is still at it's core the exercise of a preference and as such covered by humanism in general.

i.e. if you want to be a "humanist" then you should probably be wary of placing ultimate blame for atrocities on specific doctrines, as the core of your own position is that morality is a human condition not a divine one. i.e. religion did not make people condone slavery or start wars, human behaviour did.

We can certainly argue for the empirical superiority of "humanism" vs natural authority by looking at history and the different behaviours of various groups & societies. But really what we are arguing there is simply that a more considered and tolerant approach appears to make most people seem happier and results in less unpleasant things happing.

i.e. a preference supported by consensus & unfortunately that doesn't give us any more moral authority than a fanatic or predator beyond our ability to enforce it and persuade others to conform.

"Nothing is true and everything is permitted", "right" and "wrong" can only be derived from subjective principles ergo "right" and "wrong" should probably instead be replaced with "desirable" and "undesirable" as this seems closer to what one is actually expressing with a moral preference.

I completely agree with the sentiment in the video, more freedom of thought seems to mean more capacity to extrapolate and empathise. The wider your understanding and experience of people and the world the more one appears to recognise and appreciate the shared condition of being human.

But I must never forget that this apparent superiority is ultimately based on an interpretation and preference of my own and not some absolute principle. The only absolute principle I can observe in nature seems to be that chaos & conflict tend towards increasing order and complexity, but by this standard it is only really the conflict itself which is moral or "good/right" and not the various beliefs of the combatants specifically.

Related: "Everything is a Remix" (part 2 - Start Wars)
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Everything-is-a-Remix-Part-2

im no statist but this video is so childishly naive as to be laughable.

might as well call the free market jesus.

jesus is the way and the light.
follow jesus for salvation.
only jesus can absolve you of your sins.

this is about power.
if the libertarian is willing to acknowledge that the government is bloated and corrupt but unwilling to recognize the abuse of power wrought by corporations...because the corporation is part of the "free market"...they can end their sermon right there.

i am no longer interested.

if a libertarian preaches the importance of individual sovereignty and individual rights but dismisses that they are part of a community in a larger society.
they can proselytize at somebody elses door.

if a libertarian wishes to shower me with the glories of private property and ownership but ignore the importance and basic human dignity of the very workers who produce everything for those private owners.

then i say unto them that they wish to enslave their fellow man and the freedom they seek is for them alone and the rest of humanity be damned all in the name of profit and greed.

they can take their cult of ayn rand and masturbate somewhere else.

UNLESS....
they are willing to admit that:
1.as @VoodooV pointed out,we live in a society and a society is populated by PEOPLE.

2.that people deserve more than just the right to trade freely (which i agree with) but that human dignity and compassion,and yes..the right for life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3.that the corporation is actually MORE vicious than a government.a corporation is amoral by design! so if we are going to address the abusive powers of government,the abuses of corporations should be recognized as well.

4.the argument that corporations would not exist without governments is a canard.that may have been true in 1910 but no longer.there are corporations that have a higher GDP than most nation states.

5.the argument that governments start wars are only half-truths.can you guess what the other half is? thats right! banks and corporations using their power and influence to oppress third world nations...through the use (or abuse to be more accurate) of this nations military.see:smedley butler.

6.while a non-state would be amazing i am not naive enough to believe it could ever happen in our lifetime.yes many arbitrary borders have been penned by empires but there will always be lines drawn by cultural,religious and ethnicity..lets be honest.

7.while i do not share voodoos optimism in this democratic representative republics current health status (i feel it is broken and dysfunctional),it is a FAR better thing than the authoritarian,totalitarian system that is the american corporation.unless they went all democratic on me and i didnt get the memo.

8.government does have a role in our society,though it should be limited.
defense (not illegal and pre-emptive wars of aggression).
fraud control and law enforcement.
roads,fire,police,education and health,because thats what a society does for each other.
we take care of each other.
you dont like that? move to the mountains..have fun!

9.the corporate charter should be re-written."for the public good" should be re-instated for one thing.
a.i was talking to a libertarian and he used the term "non-aggression" and i really REALLY liked this.so a corporation will be held responsible for any and all:destruction to the ecology (local and abroad),destruction of peoples health,home and property.externalization of any sort will be seen as "aggression" and the CEO and all officers will be held liable to be paid by:dissillusion of company of jail time,they can choose.
b.a corporation is NOT a person and ZERO funds will be drawn from company money to purchase a legislator.they may spend as much money as they wish from their own personal accounts,but ALL contributions shall be made public over a certain amount.
c.any corporation that has been found to pay their workers so little as to put the burden on the tax payer shall be found performing an "aggressive" act against the american people and shall either pay the amount in full or forfeit their company.

dammit.im rambling ...again.
but oh baby am i digging this non-aggression dealio!

can i rewrite the corporate charter?
please please please please.....

*promote the discussion

What a complete and utter moron. Good detective work is more effective than starting wars and creating more hatred, giving terrorists more support around the world. Ya know how many people in Yemen hated us before we started to Drone the shit out of their tiny villages? Can you guess how easy it was to kill just a few dozen people and turn our allies and in rabid American Hating psychos?

Bush and Obama have hurt us around the world (and Obama got a fucking Nobel Fucking Prize). There's going to be more and more hate, more and more attacks on us and our children because of them. Because we supported them and we didn't wake up.

I don't care what people thought or were told to believe on Sept. 12th. I care what they do, and what we did was barely anything good. We started stupid wars, we threatened we cracked down.

We even commissioned a study on how to prevent future 9/11s and what did we do with the information? FUCK ALL. You can get a nuclear device from an increasingly destabilization Pakistan, which is Obamas fault with him surging the war to shit in Afghanistan. Get your Nuclear device, wrap it in a bale of fucking Marijuana, and put it in a fucking shipping container to the USofA. It'll get here, not be inspected, be taken to a fucking hotel room in lower Manhattan, assembled by a scientist who's fucking child was blown up by a fucking drone, and detonated.

We don't care, we don't THINK, we just keep going. They're not protecting us, they're not even trying. It's up to us to remove THEM so we can get in people who represent US.

God is the one who holds all the authority. The expert insight I have is called spiritual discernment, and you don't have any. You cannot accept the fact that if the bible is true it means that you are utterly deceived and unable to reason about God. That you reject God out of total ignorance. These truths are spiritually discerned and you don't even know you have one. There is absolute truth, and objective good and evil. Satan rules this world and he has spiritual dominion over anyone who doesn't know God. Satan has legal rights to you because you have rejected your creator. He's in your music, he's in these videos, he is in every lie that has been drilled into your mind about God. That's the bad stuff I am talking about, and I am a witness to this activity. I will continue that witness and pray that you reaize the truth before its too late.

>> ^offsetSammy:
What gives you any authority, moral or spiritual, over me? What expert insight do you have that I don't have? How does quoting verses from the bible make any kind of convincing argument whatsoever?
I just love your threatening tone, as if you've seen the light and have witnessed all the baaaad stuff that happens to those who do not see it. You either have a massive superiority complex, are delusional, or both. I'd suggest you're the one that needs to wake up to his 'wicked' ways. Also, your beliefs are crrrrap! Other than that you're probably a pretty nice guy though (actually not being sarcastic).
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, I am here to save lives. Believe what you will, mock me if you want, but don't pile on more condemnation for yourself.
Galatians 6:7
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
People blasphemy against God and get some sort of wicked thrill out of it but I assure you its not worth it. I highly encourage you to have a sense of self-preservation.
>> ^offsetSammy:
I've recently started coming to the conclusion that the old mantra of being respectful of others' beliefs is, as Billy Connolly so eloquently put it, crrrap. It is those very beliefs that start wars, fuel bigotry, encourage tribalism, and foster a mistrust and rejection of science and facts. You believe in a magic man in the sky despite no evidence for it? You want me to believe the earth is only a few thousand years old because you read it in a book, despite every scientific investigation saying otherwise? Your beliefs are laughable and deserve the derision they receive.
That is not to say that you, as a person, don't deserve my respect. Of course we should all be respectful of each others' humanity / existence. We're not all so different, after all. But your beliefs are not you. I'll mock them all I want.

What gives you any authority, moral or spiritual, over me? What expert insight do you have that I don't have? How does quoting verses from the bible make any kind of convincing argument whatsoever?

I just love your threatening tone, as if you've seen the light and have witnessed all the baaaad stuff that happens to those who do not see it. You either have a massive superiority complex, are delusional, or both. I'd suggest you're the one that needs to wake up to his 'wicked' ways. Also, your beliefs are crrrrap! Other than that you're probably a pretty nice guy though (actually not being sarcastic).

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, I am here to save lives. Believe what you will, mock me if you want, but don't pile on more condemnation for yourself.
Galatians 6:7
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
People blasphemy against God and get some sort of wicked thrill out of it but I assure you its not worth it. I highly encourage you to have a sense of self-preservation.
>> ^offsetSammy:
I've recently started coming to the conclusion that the old mantra of being respectful of others' beliefs is, as Billy Connolly so eloquently put it, crrrap. It is those very beliefs that start wars, fuel bigotry, encourage tribalism, and foster a mistrust and rejection of science and facts. You believe in a magic man in the sky despite no evidence for it? You want me to believe the earth is only a few thousand years old because you read it in a book, despite every scientific investigation saying otherwise? Your beliefs are laughable and deserve the derision they receive.
That is not to say that you, as a person, don't deserve my respect. Of course we should all be respectful of each others' humanity / existence. We're not all so different, after all. But your beliefs are not you. I'll mock them all I want.

Yes, all glory to the mother science, the teat of reason. Christianity does a lot of good in this world..you have no idea how much work Christians do in their communities and how much charity work is done, not even counting the missions done in other countries. Atheist dictators killed 10s of millions of people last century..more than the sum total of every religious inspired war, ever. Plenty or reason to mock that insanity. And I believe in God because of personal revelation, and as I've said..I used to be agnostic so I understand (slightly) your point of view, but not your attitude..its all atheists have to say really..an assertion of superiority based on mockery..its worse than a schoolyard. Instead of tearing someone elses beliefs down, why don't you show why yours are supposed to be right..because they haven't done much for your sense of civility >> ^offsetSammy:
I've recently started coming to the conclusion that the old mantra of being respectful of others' beliefs is, as Billy Connolly so eloquently put it, crrrap. It is those very beliefs that start wars, fuel bigotry, encourage tribalism, and foster a mistrust and rejection of science and facts. You believe in a magic man in the sky despite no evidence for it? You want me to believe the earth is only a few thousand years old because you read it in a book, despite every scientific investigation saying otherwise? Your beliefs are laughable and deserve the derision they receive.
That is not to say that you, as a person, don't deserve my respect. Of course we should all be respectful of each others' humanity / existence. We're not all so different, after all. But your beliefs are not you. I'll mock them all I want.

I've recently started coming to the conclusion that the old mantra of being respectful of others' beliefs is, as Billy Connolly so eloquently put it, crrrap. It is those very beliefs that start wars, fuel bigotry, encourage tribalism, and foster a mistrust and rejection of science and facts. You believe in a magic man in the sky despite no evidence for it? You want me to believe the earth is only a few thousand years old because you read it in a book, despite every scientific investigation saying otherwise? Your beliefs are laughable and deserve the derision they receive.

That is not to say that you, as a person, don't deserve my respect. Of course we should all be respectful of each others' humanity / existence. We're not all so different, after all. But your beliefs are not you. I'll mock them all I want.

>> ^chilaxe:

@ dystopianfuturetoday @ MaxWilder
It seems reasonable to want people in the positions of greatest influence to have as much human capital and intelligence as ourselves.


Which is why I was so extremely disappointed in the election of W...

But more to the point, the reason we have separation of powers is to account for the fact that power corrupts. We built it into our country because we expect them to screw up eventually. But the question is, does this particular screw-up reflect on his ability to perform the duties of his office. In this case, I say no. But that's just my opinion, since I'm not a sexually repressed theist. I'm sure there will be others who think that sexting is much worse than starting wars. We'll see if Weiner can take the heat. I suppose that's the way it should be.

>> ^raverman:

You're right: If only the Palestinians would put down their weapons, accept their imposed poverty, accept the god given superiority of god's choosen people, and graciously move off their land and into the sea so more settlements could be built... there would be no more violence.>> ^skinnydaddy1:
Oh, right. Its sad because if the Arab Nations had allowed the 2 state system there never would of been a problem to begin with but no. They had to attack to push the Jews in to the sea.
The real truth?
If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel’ – Benjamin Netanyahu
And thats sums it all up.



Imposed Poverty? So they are not spending millions and millions of cash on rockets, guns, explosives and bullets. Those things just appear? Maybe they should not of let Yasser Arafat pocket so much money? Claiming poverty while being able to launch hundreds and hundreds of rockets and firing thousand and thousands of bullets seems to be, I don't know.. Full of shit? Billions have been given to the Palestinians, they did not use this money to improve their lives. They used it to try and kill people.
The Arab nations started this mess. They attacked first and continued to keep trying to start wars. They used the Palestinians as a tool and Israel keeps taking the blame. And for what? Self Defense? You claim truth while screaming propaganda bullshit and for what I've seen it may be working but at some point someone is going to find out the real truth and it will be a sad day. It will be the day Hamas kicks in their door and comes for them. Palestinian TV teaches children hate and murder. Funny how you do not find that on Israeli Tv but the Israeli children are learning the lesson also. Every time a rocket is fired at them and their schools. Every time they have to run and hide when the sirens screams. Every time some brainwashed idiot blows him self up in a mall or when their Olympic athletes are murdered.

The Beginning of all this started with the Arab Countries they do not seem to want to take the responsibility to end it. So the beginning of the end must start with the Palestinians.