Damn... being able to dance on those heels is just incredible.

1. Is he a true Savant or is he "just" incredibly gifted?
2. What's the over/under on this getting DCMA'd?

You may have some valid academic point to be made about American problems.

That is however completely overwhelmed by your callous disregard for the suffering of people in actual slave labour camps, by likening them to American prisoners convicted by a jury of their peers to a standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt who are forced to work for their 3 square meals per day. Your not wrong to point out flaws in the American system, just incredible callous to the vastly worse suffering of others.

I would say you are morally wrong to exploit said people(and weakening concern for their suffering) to champion a separate cause that matters to you more.

Just incredible. I can't believe they would reveal so many major plot points before the season even begins.

Respect. I live in Canada. So my perspective is probably warped or highly misinformed and ignorant of the USA's gun control, 2nd amendment argument. But my thought is, what's wrong with not being able to own anything that exists? Assault weapons shouldn't be made available to the public, it should be restricted to the military. Period. It's just incredible how these mass murdering weapons were even allowed to be owned in the first place. Even if the argument is that it's enshrined in the 2nd amendment, then the political discussion should be about changing/more narrowly define the amendment. How old is the 2nd amendment? How applicable is it to modern needs?

Even only allowing regulated shooting ranges to have these assault weapons just for on-site shooting is good thing. It allows gun lovers to hold them in hand, try them for target practice, have some fun but not allow anyone to take them out of the shooting range. Take the private ownership part out of the equation.

I love fighter jets, tanks, rockets & lots of high tech military stuff. Not crazy about guns, but I do appreciate their beauty. Still, I don't need to own them to appreciates them.

Society (not just the USA) really need to away from the assault weapon-ownership mentality... yes, that means asking gun owners to give up that particular rights. But there's virtue in doing it for the society...

Just can't believe the cowardice of those "nothing we can do about it" Republicans like Rubio. It's part of a big, sick symptom of government under the choke-hold of the NRA, Big Business, Big Banks, lobbyists instead of the constituents. Just feel sad for the People.

It's not giving up the gun that might save lives, it's giving up the right to own them.
His gun probably wouldn't ever kill someone.
The right of any non restricted person to buy one is what leads to murderers having this tool often used to commit mass murder.
Would that stop all mass murders? Absolutely not, but it would stop SOME...probably most. Other methods people use are harder to assemble without being caught (bombs), are far less lethal (knives, arrows), and/or are harder to procure (tasteless poisons or gas). There's no other legal tool available to the public capable of mass murders with so little effort.

And yes, @BSR, this guy just made a sawed off AR15. He better post the video of him cutting it in half again if he doesn't want a visit from ATF. That gun almost certainly still fires, it's just incredibly more dangerous to the user now, and highly illegal. Not sure what you're saying in your snarky post, he didn't ever say a word otherwise.

Not that any of this is acceptable, but it's funny how your video omits the part where the armed and armored (clubs, helmets and full body pads) right wingers violently pushed into the counter protest crowd, starting the violence you now decry, and that this video edits to look one sided.

At this point, it's more than probable that nothing will get Trump reelected, but if the right is successful painting these anarchist asshats as liberals, and by extension liberals as these asshats, it could get another Trump like feculent demagogue elected.
That's why I think it's important to denounce them (antifa) at every opportunity. Fascists against fascism are still fascists, just incredibly stupid ones. They don't stand for what I think the left is about, and I certainly don't stand with them.

I agree, horrifyingly, this is apparently escalating towards gunplay. I'm not at all sure which side will shoot first. Don't fool yourself into thinking the left and the anarchists don't have guns too, though, or that totally non political citizens won't take up arms against rampaging Nazis and fascists (hopefully fascists left and right). Just something to consider when you're standing next to one hoping a gunfight breaks out.

@iaui
i do not understand you defense of corporate media pundits,who most certainly failed to recognize the actual political climate of this country.

i am not saying EVERY pundit got it wrong.there were internet political shows that did address the rise of populism,and the reasons behind it,and that trump was a valid threat and not to be dismissed.

but for the most part,corporate media pundits all echoed each others sentiments in regards to this last election cycle.

there is a REASON why bernie sanders populist language resonated with the public,and many of those people were republicans.

there is a REASON why trumps populist language,which was vastly different than sanders,resonated with another sector of the population,and not all of those people were racist,sexist,misogynist homophobes.

and none of those REASONS were addressed by corporate media pundits.they preferred to talk about trumps bombastic speeches,his racism and sexism...total cult of celebrity,because it SOLD,it made them MONEY.

it is those very same corporate media pundits that actually facilitated the rise of donald trump,and his actual presidency,because they simply did not get the current political climate here in america.which is exactly what this video is addressing,that these highly paid,and richly rewarded,pundit class reside in their own tiny,little echo chambers,that happens to reside in close proximity to the very people they have been assigned to watch,criticize and report on.

they failed on an epic scale,and it is no surprise that the majority of americans have abandoned corporate media as if it had herpes,covered in aids.

and to make the argument that this video is suspect SIMPLY because bob posted it,is intellectually dishonest,because it does NOT address the video.i disagree with bob on pretty much everything,but to ignore or disregard this video based solely on the fact that you,or i,disagree with bob politically is just incredibly weak.

now if you wish to defend corporate media political pundits,and opinion makers,and have strong case where this video is wrong in regards to how the pundit class have failed,live in a bubble,and did not understand the underlying frustration and anger boiling underneath americas working class.i am all ears,because in my opinion they have utterly failed the american people.

and i am not dismissing your polling numbers,i am just saying they are not as relevant as you are making them out to be.polls can be manipulated to mean anything you want them to mean,and in my opinion are not a strong basis to formulate an argument to defend corporate media.

but i suspect your argument is more against bob than the video,and your skepticism is based solely on your disagreement with bob politically.not un-warranted i admit,bob has posted some extremely slanted videos,but so haven't we all in our own way.

but in this case?
this video is spot on,even though bob is the one who posted.

do not let your bob bias and prejudice cloud your judgment.

Just incredible

In a perfect world, or if average people were reasonable, yes, I would make it OK to decide for themselves. Sadly they aren't, so we've legislated what's unacceptable to discriminate over.
I do support the legal protections based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and/or religion (or lack thereof)...but I don't think there's protection against refusal of service based on one's political affiliation (maybe I'm wrong). I think it's stupid to do that....it harms the business and is not conducive to civilized behavior, but yes, I think business owners that don't contract with the government in any way, never take public money, and pay all their taxes should be able to refuse service for legitimate personal reasons that don't violate those protections.
Yes, I understand there would be abuses. That's part of the price of living in a "free" society.

EDIT: The alternative is, when a NAMBLA member comes to the shop and orders 100 shirts advocating adults having sex with children, they would have to make them because ADVOCATING for child sex is not illegal, just incredibly distasteful, right?

Chalk this up to Steve Albini.

His engineering and producing for Nirvana was strictly about capturing the live performance. You can read a letter he wrote to them here:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/danmartin/this-letter-steve-albini-wrote-to-nirvana-is-just-incredible

The stupidity of it is just incredible. Had they not touched them... there song and video would have received virtually no attention. Congrats gentlemen you made their protest infinity more effective then they ever could have on their own.

Derren is NOT a fake and does not use actors or stooges he is just incredible at what he does - simple as that Do some research on him properly please!

I found these to be presumptuous. They do happen to some people, maybe even most people, but they don’t happen to all. Many people of no religion, and despite immense tragedies, live happy and fulfilling lives, and feel happy and fulfilled on their death beds. I’d further argue that people with religious faith also get depressed. I suspect you’d counter that anyone who is depressed has insincere faith. That seems tautological to me, but either way, it’s moot, for now.

Well, the central argument of the video is that life without God is meaningless. You've already agreed with that point, so the argument now seems to be is whether someone can be happy and fulfilled with a meaningless life. I'm sure there are plenty of people who weren't believers who died happily in ignorance of the truth, but the question is, did they understand that their life was meaningless? I doubt it. It is not something that many people are able to face, and even if they could, they certainly don't live that way. In some way or another, they are deluding themselves and living as if their life does have meaning.

Some people do, at least in part. It’s a lot more complex than just a lack of hope though. For some people it’s due to a tragedy, or overwhelming cognitive dissonance, or it’s simply chemical, and has no correlation with anything in their lives at all. Maybe I’m nitpicking. I just want to make clear that depression is a mental disorder and is not a synonym for, "lack of hope because I don’t have God in my life."

Hope is what keeps people going. Without hope, you are just going through the motions. When you have hope and lose it, it is emotionally devastating. A person without any hope is a person most likely clinically depressed.

You can call depression a kind of mental disorder, and some people may be born without the right chemical receptors for instance, but most people are depressed because of a lack of hope. A person, for instance, who worked their whole life and lost their retirement in an afternoon, or a mom whose kids abandoned her to live in a nursing home. They are not mentally ill, they are simply facing the cold, stark reality of their situation.

Here you slipped into metaphysical talk that means nothing to me, full of judgemental words ("sick and depraved") and terms that I had just told you I don’t accept as objective concepts ("evil"). You also know that I don’t think there’s any hope in your Yahweh God since he’s a mythological character, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from.

The point being, that if there is no God then no one is in the drivers seat here on planet Earth. I would be surprised if the extreme fragility of our civilization escaped you. If you look at history, and you contrast it to what is going on today, you will find that the new is simply the old in different packaging. We're watching the exact same game show, simply on a grander and more dangerous scale. Humanity has never been closer to utterly destroying itself anytime in its history than it is today. I'm sure, like everything else in creation, you will attribute that to dumb luck. However, if you think everything is a numbers game, then sooner or later the odds say that cooler heads will not prevail and there will be a civilization annihilating calamity. The truth is, it is only the sovereign hand of God that is restraining this from happening.

The reason I made that comment about God is because of your comment about your depression. The reason you have that feeling that if you believed in God you wouldn't be depressed is because you know there is hope in God.

(Also, not that it’s critical to the discussion, but I’d like a reference for your poll about young people not knowing who Hitler was.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/29/half-german-teens-dont-know-hitler-dictator_n_163659 3.html

Now, about "bliss". I didn’t define what I meant by that, so you didn’t understand it. I’ll make up for that now. By “bliss”, I don’t mean immediate pleasure, or instant gratification, or fulfillment of a goal, or basically anything you mentioned. I do mean a great powerful feeling of being centred, being in tune, achieving self-fulfillment, overflowing joy, love, inner peace, elation, connection, lightness, "harmony", "rapture" or a feeling that many describe as "doing what I was born to do/meant to be doing" or "transcendent". It’s the kind of happy that boosts your immune system and makes people around you feel good about themselves as well. (The words in quotes aren’t words I tend to use myself—I’m employing them to help clarify the concept I’m talking about.)

If you understand now what I mean by "bliss" (as opposed to instant gratification, etc.), you’ll understand that people don’t follow their bliss and rape people, nor find inner peace by beating their wives, and so there’s no need to append any rules about not hurting. I can’t imagine how anybody’s bliss could ever include causing harm to other people, but I’ll even address that hypothetical, towards the end of this comment.

Thanks for the elaboration. I am familiar with the philosophy of Sam Harris, and I figured you were borrowing from him, but it is good to know where you stand. My original point, however, still stands. You say you can't imagine someone finding bliss in hurting people. Well, have you ever heard of psychopaths? They do indeed find their bliss in acquiring power and control and making other people miserable, and they feel absolutely no remorse for doing so.

You also say that you feel the best state of a human being is to be blissfully happy. I'm sure everyone will agree with you that feeling blissfully happy is good. However, why should we believe this is actually what good is?. Yes, it feels good to feel good, but this doesn't tell us why we *ought* to do anything. Maybe this is just incredibly selfish and the opposite of good, or somewhere in the middle is true, or maybe none of it. You give no actual reason (beyond arbitrary statements like that which makes the world better or worse) to equate feeling good with moral goodness. In a meaningless Universe, neither is there any basis for thinking that you have any moral duties. This leads me to some questions that you didn't actually address in the last post. Let me ask them again because they are central to this discussion:

In a meaningless Universe there is no actual right and wrong, so why shouldn't you just do whatever you want? Why waste your time trying to navigate some moral landscape that you don't even believe really exists? Why not just take what you can, when you can, before you lose the opportunity?

I'll also address some of your comments:

In all cases, whatever they did, it was because they were feeling bad about something, weren’t centred, and reacted from "lizard brain" instincts of individual survival rather than from human compassion

People do evil because they get carried away by their lusts and become enticed. You view this as some sort of ignorance, or automatic function. Not so. When a person is doing wrong, they are almost always entirely aware of this, but simply override their moral restraints with their desire to fulfill their lusts. People are responsible for the evil that they do, not society, environmental factors, their parents, or anything else.

Divine morality isn’t necessary. Having any collective understanding of what is good and what is bad is enough. For most of humanity’s existence, even up to now, there hasn’t been a clear standard. In patches of geography where there was one, it only applied well to that time and culture. Just as ordinary people supplanted kings and emperors as absolute leaders without society collapsing, and just as ordinary people supplanted religions are sole arbiters of the law without society collapsing, ordinary people can supplant religion as arbiter of what is good and what is bad as well, and society will continue not to collapse.

I've already agreed with you that we all have a God given conscience that tells us right from wrong. Therefore, we don't need to read the bible to know that it is wrong to murder or steal. However, what God has commanded is that we all repent and believe in the gospel. This is something you aren't going to intuitively understand without being told.

And better than a list of what’s good and what’s bad is a system that determines for us what’s good and what’s bad. I’ve seen one model that I like, delivered by Sam Harris. The most salient bit starts at about 10:00 and runs to around 27:30. If you don’t want to watch it now, I’ll summarise the most important ideas: For a moral code to have meaning, it has to apply to some form of consciousness – it cannot apply to rocks and dust. Then there’s the central point which requires you to imagine "the worst possible misery for everyone", and assume that this situation is "bad". "Good" is then defined in terms of moving people away from this "worst possible misery for everyone". That’s it. I recommend hearing it from Harris himself.

I am familiar with his system, to which I reiterate the point; what is the ground for associating moral evil with misery and moral good with "moving people away from misery". Where do you get moral duties in a meaningless Universe?

The three advantages that occur to me of this system over Yahweh’s morality are that it’s a simple system rather than a long intricate list, so it’s quick to teach, easy to absorb, understand and reference, hard to corrupt, and all-inclusive; there’s absolutely nothing random about it, so odd details like not being allowed to wear garments made from two different thread types won’t make it in and there’s nothing objectionable about it from the standpoint of people who just want to do the right thing; and it’s truly universal in that it applies equally well now as it would have in 4000 BC China, in 30 AD Mesopotamia, or will in 12 000 AD Mars, so it’s broadly acceptable too.

The morality that God gives can be summed up in two commandments: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind and all thy strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself. As Jesus told us:

Matthew 22:40

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments

That's a very simple system. When you love God and other people everything else follows naturally.

Every act that is good makes things better for people. If an act makes the world worse, then it’s bad. Simple. Lots of generalities can be derived from it, like killing people is bad, respecting other people’s property is good, and there’d be no arbitrary crap about touching pig skin being bad or extra-marital sex being bad.

On the contrary, it's all arbitrary, because "what makes things better for people" or what "makes the world worse" is something determined by consensus. If everyone in the world agreed that torturing babies for fun made things better for people, it would be good in your view. If your moral system allows for this possibility, I think that's a sign its time to throw it away.

Even more generally, we clearly don’t require any god to tell us what’s good and what isn’t. We already have a conscience inside us that tells us what’s good and what isn’t regardless of laws. I know you believe that Yahweh made our conscience for us. Even if that were so, it doesn’t change the fact that if properly relied upon, a conscience precludes the need for an external set of laws. Any law that echoes what everyone naturally feels already is superfluous. Any law that contributes to human misery is morally wrong and deserves to be disregarded.

If this were true, there would be no need for courts, judges, prisons, or police officers. There are also laws which may make some people miserable but are necessary for the greater good.

You state that without a divine moral standard that exists outside our consciousness, there is no objective justice. This is true by definition. Without a true objective moral code, you further argue that nobody can condemn any action as bad without being hypocritical, so in effect, everything is permissible. This is not the case, however. Although the moral code I advocate isn’t "objective" in the sense that it exists beyond our consciousness, it is universal among humans. And if we’re only attempting to determine moral behaviour for humans, then a universally accepted standard among humans suffices, regardless of where we think it came from.

It doesn't suffice, though. Yes, we can both agree there is a universal morality among human beings. How is that fact supposed to serve as grounds to invent an arbitrary system of good and evil based on people following their bliss and avoiding misery? I could just easily reverse the two and say the existence of universal morality justifies that too. I could say that the existence of a universal morality justifies that we should all love eggplants and hate rutabagas. There is no logical connection here between the system you've created and universal morality.

If there is no objective morality, then nothing is really wrong. Any system you create in the end is a human invention, based on human interpretation, and agreed upon by human consensus. You still cannot get an ought from an is. Good could be defined as a world of people who love each other, or a world of people who love to eat children. What is wrong then is simply based on your personal preferences.

The arguments I make here don’t describe a perfect system. That’s wasn’t my intention. I believe they do, however, answer your concerns about non-objective morality being insufficient to guide humans.

I understand that this wasn't meant to be perfect. It has, however, raised more concerns than it answered.

>> ^messenger

>> ^deputydog:

the last example in this video is just incredible.
the comment thread on reddit is worth reading.


Reddit rocks!