>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^jwray:
Also, the gravitational energy released by the collapse could put a shitload more heat into things that were already really hot.

I, for one, am very unsure on this idea that the gravitational potential energy of bricks falling a maximum of 800m (the very very top bricks only) are a source of major internal heating in a building collapse.
Random thought experiment - if i dropped 50 kg of wood from 800m, that's a lot of gravitational potential energy. Would it set on fire, then, on impact with the ground?



17.4 degrees C for iron dropped 800m in a vacuum. More or less for other things depending on their specific heat capacity and the exact configuration of the collapse. Things that get a lot of shit falling on top of them may get a 10-100 times larger share of the energy than the average depending on the parameters of all the materials (if you drop a hard thing onto mush, the mush absorbs most of the impact).

Also, imstellar, 99.9% of all legitimate scientists don't support the "WTC was an inside job done with thermite" hypothesis. For one, it violates occam's razor. The planes alone were enough. A lot of people actually DIED on those planes and were never heard from again. Plus there is VIDEO of the planes crashing into the buildings.

>> ^jwray:

Also, the gravitational energy released by the collapse could put a shitload more heat into things that were already really hot.


I, for one, am very unsure on this idea that the gravitational potential energy of bricks falling a maximum of 800m (the very very top bricks only) are a source of major internal heating in a building collapse.

Random thought experiment - if i dropped 50 kg of wood from 800m, that's a lot of gravitational potential energy. Would it set on fire, then, on impact with the ground?

Why does it have to be a controlled explosion (I'm not saying it is or it isn't). The government is far more organized than it would have you believe. You really think four planes would be able to leave their flight plans and crash into buildings like this? Get real. Even if the government didn't sabotage it they could have easily let it happen because it was overwhelming beneficial to their interests.

As a thought experiment, name a single negative effect from 9/11 (from a governmental perspective). And no, loss of a few thousand lives is not an answer...

There is nothing to gain from preventing this. At the very least you should be asking yourself "how could this possibly happen with the infrastructure in place." Even if the government in no way facilitated these events, you think it was completely blind that it was possible or even likely?

A clan system? Like Afgahnistan, Irak, Libya, Saudi Arabia... need I go on?>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Truckchase:
>> ^ridesallyridenc:
Truckchase, you're right. With regard to your last two paragraphs, I think we are more similar than I may have thought. At least with respect to our perceptions of the problem. Our individual ideas of how to address the problem, however, may be divergent.

Man do I appreciate that; this is why I love the sift! I really mean it when I say I'm open to ideas. The initial thought of my "solution" makes me ill at first glance, but I've thought about this one for a long time and haven't yet come up with any other way to stem the tide in our lifetime. I do think we'll eventually get a shift against the immense corporate and personal power of the ultra-huge and ultra-rich as the mainstream populous is denied what has been promised to them, but often we humans take generations to see what has right in front of our face. My real fear is that by the time the US citizens wake up and see what has been going on, it'll be too late and we'll be a severely dis-empowered country with a heavily entrenched ruling upper class.
That said I do think there is certainly a need for workforce stimulus as you have laid out. Balancing the two concepts is the exceptionally hard part... apathy is the mortal enemy of progress.
Edit: replaced "can't" with "haven't yet"

In my friends sci-fi, never to be, movie; the villain, through gene manipulation, became a world financial powerhouse. He was able to manipulate the world with this power, and the device of his power...a teleportation machine. Using this device, similar to the fly, he could modify himself, and indeed, store backup copies of himself if things went bad. The hero's couldn't combat him, he was to strong and powerful. The hero discovered that each day if the villain was alive, the clone was destroyed. The hero thought of a plan to combat the villain...with himself! They were able to unleash the clone of the villain, and of course, both wanted to be top dog.
I bring this story up because I think it has a lot to deal with our current situation. Their are 2 types of ultra rich, those who earned it, and those who exploited it. The former are more common then the later, but the later is the bad apple that spoils the bunch for sure. More often than not, usually their rise to power isn't because of any real thing, but of being able to game the system in their favor. The current game in town is government regulatory bodies. They are able to be top dog because they can run anyone out of business with their "power" (money, and the government is their teleportation device . In many cases, if you had other "villains" running around, they would be hard pressed to gain unchallengeable power. I have yet to be exposed to a "natural" monopoly spare ones dealing in raw earth resources.
I think one of the main problems you face if you wish to level the playing field with regulatory bodies is distributed costs, concentrated benefits. You can't gain much political capital to fight the unfair sugar tax all US citizens incur, the financial drain is just to small to get motivation to fight. That "tax" results in, if memory serves, a 4 billion dollar "subsidy" to the sugar growers of America. If you are a sugar company, it just makes since to pass laws like this. The same goes for any other US company. When you are talking billions of dollars, you can't NOT be in Washington...no matter how "legal" it is. If the drug war has taught us anything, when billions of dollars are at stake, there isn't a wall high enough to stop the flow. You will never, ever end regulatory corruption.
Personally, I feel things like videosift could replace many of what we consider government responsibilities. With, I say, about 120 people talking about all the things that matter, you could protect yourself from companies known for food contamination, health trends, investing in your retirement, ect. Even things like labor unions might be better served through communities of people and not just of workers.
I think that the answer to many social problems can be solved if we look to our own evolution. It has been said that brain size is directly correlated to the size of the animal group members. If you extrapolate from monkey brains to our brain size, the perfect group size is around 130-200 people. Any system larger than this flies in the face of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. You can expect much suffering and exploitation in a system that goes away from this number. I believe this is the reason a person can feel alone in a city of millions of people, your brain just isn't ready to handle it. Communities might not be the most efficient way to run things from a logical stand point...but we aren't mostly logical. We are animals trying to be more than what we are. As a result, we have caused much suffering and hardship.
My new metal experiment is developing a sort of "clan" system. Managing powers of clans and rights and responsible thereof. I think it would be inefficient, yet, highly effective because it takes into account the general nature of mankind. Of note, labor unions are already along the lines of clan thinking, so my thought experiment is already playing itself out through the natural course of the market.

>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
Truckchase, you're right. With regard to your last two paragraphs, I think we are more similar than I may have thought. At least with respect to our perceptions of the problem. Our individual ideas of how to address the problem, however, may be divergent.

Man do I appreciate that; this is why I love the sift! I really mean it when I say I'm open to ideas. The initial thought of my "solution" makes me ill at first glance, but I've thought about this one for a long time and haven't yet come up with any other way to stem the tide in our lifetime. I do think we'll eventually get a shift against the immense corporate and personal power of the ultra-huge and ultra-rich as the mainstream populous is denied what has been promised to them, but often we humans take generations to see what has right in front of our face. My real fear is that by the time the US citizens wake up and see what has been going on, it'll be too late and we'll be a severely dis-empowered country with a heavily entrenched ruling upper class.
That said I do think there is certainly a need for workforce stimulus as you have laid out. Balancing the two concepts is the exceptionally hard part... apathy is the mortal enemy of progress.
Edit: replaced "can't" with "haven't yet"


In my friends sci-fi, never to be, movie; the villain, through gene manipulation, became a world financial powerhouse. He was able to manipulate the world with this power, and the device of his power...a teleportation machine. Using this device, similar to the fly, he could modify himself, and indeed, store backup copies of himself if things went bad. The hero's couldn't combat him, he was to strong and powerful. The hero discovered that each day if the villain was alive, the clone was destroyed. The hero thought of a plan to combat the villain...with himself! They were able to unleash the clone of the villain, and of course, both wanted to be top dog.

I bring this story up because I think it has a lot to deal with our current situation. Their are 2 types of ultra rich, those who earned it, and those who exploited it. The former are more common then the later, but the later is the bad apple that spoils the bunch for sure. More often than not, usually their rise to power isn't because of any real thing, but of being able to game the system in their favor. The current game in town is government regulatory bodies. They are able to be top dog because they can run anyone out of business with their "power" (money, and the government is their teleportation device . In many cases, if you had other "villains" running around, they would be hard pressed to gain unchallengeable power. I have yet to be exposed to a "natural" monopoly spare ones dealing in raw earth resources.

I think one of the main problems you face if you wish to level the playing field with regulatory bodies is distributed costs, concentrated benefits. You can't gain much political capital to fight the unfair sugar tax all US citizens incur, the financial drain is just to small to get motivation to fight. That "tax" results in, if memory serves, a 4 billion dollar "subsidy" to the sugar growers of America. If you are a sugar company, it just makes since to pass laws like this. The same goes for any other US company. When you are talking billions of dollars, you can't NOT be in Washington...no matter how "legal" it is. If the drug war has taught us anything, when billions of dollars are at stake, there isn't a wall high enough to stop the flow. You will never, ever end regulatory corruption.

Personally, I feel things like videosift could replace many of what we consider government responsibilities. With, I say, about 120 people talking about all the things that matter, you could protect yourself from companies known for food contamination, health trends, investing in your retirement, ect. Even things like labor unions might be better served through communities of people and not just of workers.

I think that the answer to many social problems can be solved if we look to our own evolution. It has been said that brain size is directly correlated to the size of the animal group members. If you extrapolate from monkey brains to our brain size, the perfect group size is around 130-200 people. Any system larger than this flies in the face of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. You can expect much suffering and exploitation in a system that goes away from this number. I believe this is the reason a person can feel alone in a city of millions of people, your brain just isn't ready to handle it. Communities might not be the most efficient way to run things from a logical stand point...but we aren't mostly logical. We are animals trying to be more than what we are. As a result, we have caused much suffering and hardship.

My new metal experiment is developing a sort of "clan" system. Managing powers of clans and rights and responsible thereof. I think it would be inefficient, yet, highly effective because it takes into account the general nature of mankind. Of note, labor unions are already along the lines of clan thinking, so my thought experiment is already playing itself out through the natural course of the market.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

As a physicist, I am utterly confused how quantum mechanics plays a role in determining random differences between humans. I think probably chaos is more at work here.
It seems like the rest is conjecture. Even twins sometimes turn out very different. I highly doubt that two people with different genetics when subjected to the same environment and conditioning will arrive at the same end state. There are just way too many variables to assume that that is always true.
>> ^kceaton1:
...True, free will has and will always be an utter joke. People claim they would not do something in someone else's shoes, but if you impose the same biology and conditions--YOU WILL do EXACTLY the same thing (except for random quantum mechanical variations). In fact when it is said and done your mind will be indistinguishable from theirs...



Well to be honest when I wrote "quantum mechanical fluctuations" I'm talking about extremely small scale instances that get "measured" slightly differently (I explain a tad further down below). As particles have a pesky nature of doing two things at once or being measured somewhere else than expected or acting different than expected--it's even been shown to a limited degree that quantum mechanical effects like the dual slit experiment, entanglement, and superposition/duality may have some large scale implications (large scale meaning, the size of a few atoms or a molecule). Anything that would have large scale influences would have to be akin to "The Butterfly Effect". Repeating an event over ,as far as we know, can't be done "perfectly". Hence, the only reason I said fluctuations--yes, folks they would "most likely" be incredibly negligible. Give it 10 billion years then we might have something to talk about (like the small-scale setup at the big bang basically determining the layout and setup of the Universe as we see it now).

Second, what I mean by "wearing someone else's shoes", is to show that that this line of reasoning is impossible as we understand physics and neurology. In my opinion it also shows a very large lack of empathy or understanding in someone. At the least they do not have a good grasp of multiple subjects and how they interrelate; especially concerning the sciences.

I'm saying we would take whatever constitutes "the soul" and stick it in the baby. From my understanding and point of view, as I don't believe in a magical source of self that exists at any level. This would mean, literally nothing changes. Then let things go from there; this really is a time-travel experiment. This is a ludicrous idea. Experience and time, what we face and our decisions, our neurons and their connections and the chemical composition and topography of the brain IS our soul. If you switched places, you WILL be that person; as you don't exist. In your example the other twin would have to literally occupy the exact time and space as her twin--which can't happen; it's untestable. It's a thought experiment. Quantum mechanics would by definition require some changes to occur if "the test" is possible to be created by us--we would change things by interfering in any way.

Only someone religious could ever find a separate or different answer.

I'm talking of a literally switch not a philosophical attributed example (like religion) or a biological test and study of nature/nurture. It is ludicrous, as everything we know about our psyche shows that we experience reality as a type of delusion (practically the only way to describe our reality, psychologically speaking) which can be changed by a great many factors (your biology, drugs, or any interaction). When we communicate to each other (and this is what makes humans so important on Earth and different) we are able to communicate and describe across that sensory and brain created "delusional" void. What can and does get across IS also immense: our experiences, our own point-of-view, our senses, our own delusion. Then we can compare and make a determination of what constitutes reality by ourselves or in a group. Even if someone is high or I should say using anything that will change perception or alter senses, they/we can tell that there is a change through internal logic and experience a new "delusion" or perception. Some religions see this as a way to communicate divinely or likewise; i.e. examples like Native Americans and peyote. It's THE supreme attribute and ability we have as humans as well as "old world" monkeys. They seem to also, "possibly" grasp this "void" and how that barrier can be crossed too. A VERY limited version of ours, however.

We have found ape fossils that suggest that there may've been apes in the past that had I.Q.s in the 300 range. But, without the ability to teach each other, in a very complex manner, they were useless and died off. The fact we can retain old knowledge and teach and re-teach, write it down, save it to a drive, etcetera is the reason why we prosper with a smaller I.Q..

I hope that's much clearer. Or at the least helps. Some is meant for general consumption by others.

/One thing. If you're a physicist as you say, please tell me you don't think "chaos theory" or something akin to it, works on any other level than "maybe" (as we don't know yet) the quantum mechanical level. Everything that is bigger than a particle has very straightforward understandings. Otherwise, we'd have nuclear reactors blowing up everywhere, planes falling out of the sky, etc... Even people would start doing things "for no reason" except: well chaos theory made me do it. If you're talking merely about small-scale interactions still bigger than an atom, then still if you had the detectors, math, and "layout" ready beforehand you'd be able to "predict" an amazing array of things.

The only reason it seems chaotic is sensory and theory deprivation. The main forces of physics (weak/strong/electromagnetism/gravity/pluswhatwefind) describe actions very well. Especially, when we build it.

//Sorry, I think that may be a little too adversarial, but chaos to me is just a lack of "x"--whatever your dealing with.
///Lastly, (a bit more about above) the brain is amazing, but I definitely know I do not even come remotely close to being able to claim I've made a choice due to free-will; modern psychology is starting to understand that this is a fallacy of perception--The Matrix got one thing very right (as much as I hated the second and third shows, THIS was a great line that bears repeating and understanding): It's not the choices that we make that should surprise us, it's why we made the choice in the first place. Free-will is used best with LOTS of pre-planning and thinking ahead; most choices are made for you already. Understanding the way the human brain is doing the stuff it's doing is showing us that "WE" or "ourselves" have a great ability to take horrifically misunderstood or saved-sensory information and make it fit what we want it to fit. It's our rational ability that is the amazing and saving grace for us, or we would ALL be truly mad and lost in our own delusional worlds--each person seeing the world immensely different; like people with illnesses/on drugs/ or having a true mental illness do.

It should be noted that other people can also act like drugs, illnesses, senses, and other type affects on you. Hence, religions do very well at self sustaining belief and manipulation; this goes for all group-think.

A bit long, but this is a subject that I'm impassioned about and I do hope some take it to heart and understand it's implications and ramifications as they're far reaching. It has brought me great peace to know I found some truth in this life. I also have peace in what I would say is my spiritual health (psyche, but more general--including memories and thinking). Losing faith with nothing to use is an extremely disheartening event; I know. Science and understanding helped me transition immensely. I know many others that did not have this to use; I'm not kidding when I say that all sciences and math comes to me easily--many I know don't have this ability. It caused me to fight lies, fear, misunderstandings, and ignorance with patience and the ability to never give up. Truth has one great quality in that it is a lot like water. It finds every nook and cranny on a rock. It goes everywhere and ultimately will collapse and destroy anything that isn't waterproofed and all it needs is time. Ideas are the same, but truth is like water. If you find someone that is willing to at least ask a question of you, that is the half way point. Point them in the right direction and time will cause the change, but they must be curious, steadfast, and ready to question the questions.

Adults are the most lost. With my understanding of the human mind it makes perfect sense why they are the hardest to change. It may eventually be shown that it's impossible to reach everyone, physiological and psychologically speaking. Their own neural pathways and memories literally make it impossible for them to make that change or escape their own delusion, their current mind/brain has no way physically to do it--maybe with drugs or surgery--extreme, I know, but this also goes for chronic depression, mania, and SO MANY other type of conditions.

/Wow, that covered a lot of ground--heavily edited in a few spots for better clarification or expansion of a notion that needed some meat to be understood correctly. Tom Cruise is a moron who may be like what I said in the last point (unfortunately). I hope this is more informative than derisive as some points will be no matter what.

WARNING: Meant to be long and informative.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

-it brings to mind a thought experiment I have been playing with recently about government systems that are maintained only by volunteering funds. [...]
-I hate that taxes are co-opted from people [...]
-In a system of direct finance, you vote with your dollar, and every vote counts its weight in gold. [...]

I would love to see such an experiment actually play out if it were possible. I say give a large sample of people a choice between a voluntary payment system and a tax-based representative system (not that those are the only two types available).

Firstly, it would be interesting to see how many people choose each. Who would choose absolute choice/liberty over (hopefully) consistent income/ownership based taxation? The voluntary system could seem more Darwinian with a higher achievement cap, but the taxation system could be seen as more stable.

Secondly, it would be wonderful to see both systems play out with the people who choose each. Which system really would be more stable? How much unrest is there at the low-income end of each? Which one provides a better environment for technological innovation? As time goes on, how many people (and who) choose to relocate from one system to the other? (Each system could perhaps determine its own penalties/rewards for those leaving or joining the system.)


Sadly, I don't see a good way to carry out such an experiment, but perhaps we could try some pilot programs. I wonder how many wars we would wage if funding them was voluntary...

>> ^Psychologic:

I plan on using this argument next time I rent an apartment. Sure, I moved there intentionally, but if my son is born there then he should be able to benefit from it indefinitely for free.
Charging my kid rent after I die, regardless of age, would be theft... when did he ever sign a lease? He didn't choose to be born there and it's a really nice building so why should he be expected to move? If anyone demands payment then he can just request "evidence" and "the facts" about what a "rentpayer" or "rentable occupancy" is.
Sure, it takes money for the "landlord" to keep the place in good condition, but that isn't my kid's problem. If anyone else thinks they aren't paying enough rent to keep the building running then they're more than welcome to pay extra.


My sarcasm detector is broken, so I can't gauge the real mood of this comment! However, it brings to mind a thought experiment I have been playing with recently about government systems that are maintained only by volunteering funds. It's existence would be akin to the salvation army, or a church in the way funding is captured. The benefits are you directly support elements of government that you elect to. For instance, I don't agree with social welfare programs, but if I saw the government was doing a better job than salvation army, I could give more (or less if they do poor, less to the order of none). Same goes for NASA, I hate that taxes are co-opted from people, but I would willing give many dollars to this particular cause.

The counter argument to this is, of course, if people aren't forced to do something, they won't. A dubious argument, that has elements of truth...but is mostly inaccurate IMO. I think one of the inherit flaws in government entities is their immunity to the demands of the people. Our demands get trickled though representatives that then get diluted among other representatives. In a system of direct finance, you vote with your dollar, and every vote counts its weight in gold. It would be a first in the world that a government ever exists completely by voluntary funding. It sounds wacky and unrealistic because it has never been done before, ever. With that said, I know it can work because we see things like it work around us all the time. Perhaps it can't work for everything the government needs to do, like national defense, or international affairs, but for literally everything else, I think it has merit.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Your confusing the meaning of big. Big here is referring to scope. Like the thought experiment, the scope of the police force went from local to national...that is the size difference he was talking about.
How do you address the claim that large central government misrepresent larger portions of the populations due to their non-regional considerations?
US airports are not government facilities.
It is foolish to assume that local governments are more corrupt than distant ones. If the people right under your nose are muxing things up, how about the people 1400 miles away...how much more corrupt can they be without your constant eye? And when they are corrupt, they do it with a larger portion of pie. Granted, that pie might add up to the same pie that would be lost to local corruption of the whole system...but like the video suggests, you are more likely to catch and correct it on the local level.
Also, can you name one super large corporation that isn't also highly regulated, I can't. Microsoft is protected by intellectual property laws, the news giants all started as legal monopoly telco and cable providers, Energy has been quazi-government/private for decades, Rail roads where publicly sponsored then privately owned. Can you name one truly organic natural monopoly that arose from someones good business practices and not its status with government and regulations?

>> ^vaporlock:
I haven't finished watching this yet but hasn't everything been "getting bigger"? Our population, corporations, number of consumer products, number of food items in a supermarket, number of schools, number of airline flights, number of roads, etc, etc. Has government really grown at a rate greater than everything else? Can I really believe that my local town can regulate or even protect itself from big corporations? For example if a BP gas station leaks fuel into the water-table. Mind you my hometown has a problem even cutting the grass on the side of the highway.
I'm all for controlling how the government exploits the rest of the earth, but the airports, national parks, national laboratories, and roadways in the US are some of the best in the world. These were done partially by our "big government". You just have to look at the small governments in the South and local communities across the US to see real corruption.
OK... rant over... start video
After watching. I can say that I agree with the analysis but not the conclusion. Government is not the problem, it's corporate control over government. When you consider the growth of the military alone, his point about the growth of the government is mute. How big was the military in 1907, how big in 2007. The military is a huge percentage of the government, even bigger when you consider government contractors and corporations with contracts, etc. I'm guessing that the growth of the "military industrial complex" alone accounts for much of the 30% difference between 1907 and 2007.
Cut the military, stop f'cking with the rest of the world, guarantee civil rights for everybody, protect the environment, make sure the food and other consumer products are safe, maintain the roadways, support science and education, and I'm all for a big atheist government of the people.




I'm guessing he meant without federal funding of infrastructure our airports, for instance, wouldn't be as good as they are. example Yes, there are private options to this, but when you want to take a global edge in something at a large scale, the only option is the federal option.

The video is ostensibly true in that smaller governments are more efficient, with greater accountability in their daily minutia. However, there is a certain efficiency in extending 'good' programs to the entire country at once rather than requiring every small subsection to enact it independently. It's also pointless at this point(I'll do it anyway) to even mention that many inefficient programs are as a result of undue influence of special interest groups. Public campaign funding, greater transparency and more effective dissemination of information from watchdog groups are all ways of making the federal government more efficient. In this age, it should be possible to catch more of the bullshit happening, which the political media coverage consistently fails to do for various reasons.

Of course, there are many watchdog groups that examine the inner workings of the federal government, because it's large, centralized and presents a larger impact on the country. They often detect corruption but don't have the platform to spread their findings to the larger public unless a larger media conglomerate picks up on it. The geographic distance from a centralized government is not a significant factor in detecting corruption as it is balanced by the large number of eyes focusing on it. If you mean local populaces remaining unaware of how terrible their national representatives are, then you have a point. But this factor will hopefully be alleviated in the future through continuing improvement in getting information to the public.

Don't pretend oversight at the local level isn't without it's problems, though they tend to take a different form from the federal level.

Yes, I'm deeply concerned with the government handing out monopolies like candy. I favor copyright/patent reform.

tl;dr Government requires constant supervision and representatives should be treated like children and changed when they crap themselves. But we love them anyway because they're essential for society to continue.

Your confusing the meaning of big. Big here is referring to scope. Like the thought experiment, the scope of the police force went from local to national...that is the size difference he was talking about.

How do you address the claim that large central government misrepresent larger portions of the populations do to their non-regional considerations?

US airports are not government facilities.

It is foolish to assume that local governments are more corrupt than distant ones. If the people right under your nose are muxing things up, how about the people 1400 miles away...how much more corrupt can they be without your constant eye? And when they are corrupt, they do it with a larger portion of pie. Granted, that pie might add up to the same pie that would be lost to local corruption of the whole system...but like the video suggests, you are more likely to catch and correct it on the local level.

Also, can you name one super large corporation that isn't also highly regulated, I can't. Microsoft is protected by intellectual property laws, the news giants all started as legal monopoly telco and cable providers, Energy has been quazi-government/private for decades, Rail roads where publicly sponsored then privately owned. Can you name one truly organic natural monopoly that arose from someones good business practices and not its status with government and regulations?


>> ^vaporlock:

I haven't finished watching this yet but hasn't everything been "getting bigger"? Our population, corporations, number of consumer products, number of food items in a supermarket, number of schools, number of airline flights, number of roads, etc, etc. Has government really grown at a rate greater than everything else? Can I really believe that my local town can regulate or even protect itself from big corporations? For example if a BP gas station leaks fuel into the water-table. Mind you my hometown has a problem even cutting the grass on the side of the highway.
I'm all for controlling how the government exploits the rest of the earth, but the airports, national parks, national laboratories, and roadways in the US are some of the best in the world. These were done partially by our "big government". You just have to look at the small governments in the South and local communities across the US to see real corruption.
OK... rant over... start video
After watching. I can say that I agree with the analysis but not the conclusion. Government is not the problem, it's corporate control over government. When you consider the growth of the military alone, his point about the growth of the government is mute. How big was the military in 1907, how big in 2007. The military is a huge percentage of the government, even bigger when you consider government contractors and corporations with contracts, etc. I'm guessing that the growth of the "military industrial complex" alone accounts for much of the 30% difference between 1907 and 2007.
Cut the military, stop f'cking with the rest of the world, guarantee civil rights for everybody, protect the environment, make sure the food and other consumer products are safe, maintain the roadways, support science and education, and I'm all for a big atheist government of the people.

This was better done than I expected, relatively good thought experiments.

>> ^shinyblurry:


The funny part about saying that "The Devil"™ runs things down here is funny. The reason it's funny is that even when I was a fairly religious person I could never quite figure out why "The Devil"™ was so evil.
He disobeyed "God"™, but that was about it. Apparently, now, he runs a place called Hel or Helle(or if you prefer the misspelled version: hille, hillja, hell, etc...). He's also able to tempt us (or if you wish, we let him tempt us, giving him even less power) to do things; who knows what though. He's also supposed to be a fallen angel that many think to be red and ugly with horns. It should also be noted that Hell (Hel) has lakes of fire (which sounds cool; almost like Hawaii), but seems to lack all the horrific stuff you hear of elsewhere.
I'm just wondering, why Lucifer (The Bringer of Light) is so "Evil"™? Also, last time I checked "Free Will"™ was sitting around; so if "The Devil"™ runs Earth, why do we need that? His role greatly differs throughout the Christian realm of knowledge as well as those that are linked (like Judaism, Islam, etc...). The idea of a bad guy against the ultimate good guy sent here or another place are in many religions world wide. Some of those religions pre-date Christianity by more than a thousand years and Judaism by hundreds (if not more). Sometimes these "figureheads" have been concentrated into one form as they were once in the form of many figureheads, besides "God" and "the Devil".
There is a litany of things attributed to: Satan, ha-sataan(Judaism has no "real" direct version), Baal Davar, the Devil, Lucifer, Lord of Flies, Dragon (or serpent; is "believed" to be the serpent in the Garden of Eden), Beelzubub (if you like the demon storyline; not a Mormon thing), Iblis, Shaitan, Jinn, Ying-Yang (pick one), Vishnu (atleast one aspect), Set, Apep,Sammael, Belial, ad nauseum...
Anyway, he disagreed with God "about something"; the "about something" depends on the flavor you belong to.
To cut it short: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism... They all suffer from the same problem: cognitive dissonance. Not a one holds up to a double-blind scientific experiment, let alone a simple thought experiment. If we have a "God" they most certainly are not prescient or omnipotent. The fact that I can post this kills one half of the logic, the other logic "free will" seems to be negated by every law and fact of science ever put together. You have choice, but it most certainly is not absolute.


If you were formally religious I am surprised you don't understand why the Devil is evil. I'll elaborate on this..
In the beginning, when man still dwelled in the Garden of Eden, he existed in a perfect state of grace with God. There was no such thing as sin, or death. Adam and Eve, the first humans, walked and talked with God face to face. God, to test their hearts, only gave them one command..not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He promised them that if they did so they would surely die.
Now the devil enters the picture. God had made him the most beautiful of all the angels, and gave him great power and dominion. The devil was soon corrupted by his own vanity however, because he started to think "I will be like the Most High" and desired to have his throne beside Gods. His sin was/is pride. Because of this, he was cast down to Earth.
Now God gave Earth to Adam. He was its ruler. Satan knew this, and knew that if he could corrupt him, he would gain power over the whole world because he would gain power over Adam. So the devil came to them and said that God was lying about the apple. That, not only would they not die, but they would become like God by eating it. After eating, Adam and Eve lost their innocence and the state of grace they enjoyed with God by sinning, and brought death into the world. From that moment on they were mortal beings with mortal needs.
Satan has been the ruler of this world since then. His power, however, was broken at Calvary when Christ died on the cross. Christ, the new Adam, lived a sinless life. Being born of a virgin, he did not inherit the sin of Adam. By living a sinless life, he redeemed mankind and gave all people on Earth a way to know God, His Father, through Him. When He died He went down to hell, battered down the gates, and took the power of death from the devil. When He was resurrected, He liberated mankind from the power of death, and was the first fruits of the world to come.
Now, Satan is still the ruler but on the run. He knows his time is short and growing ever shorter. His last shot is when the antichrist comes to power. Now, free will is fairly simple. You have the choice to obey or disobey Gods commands. God doesn't make you love Him. All those who delight in wickedness, however, will be punished on judgment day. Hell was not created for humans, but anyone who throws their lot in with the devil will earn the devils reward. His sin was pride, and so too are the ones who reject God similarly prideful, for they believe his lies and reject the truth.
That about sums it up. I would ascribe some cognitive dissonance to your post also, for your conclusions have seemingly been pulled from a hat. How does posting what you did negate anything about Gods omniscience, and how do the arbitrary rules of science say anything about free will? You may want to read about determinism vs free will for some background before you answer.


Indeed, that does just about sum it up.

Kceaton doesn't need to try to negate your Christian god's omniscience (assuming the proposition that he exists in the first place is true, which you haven't even attempted to demonstrate). You did that just swimmingly all on your own, assuming again, that you're not a liar or playing Devil's Advocate and earnestly believe what you just typed.

Thanks for saving anyone with any inclination to refute your imaginary friend a whole lot of time by doing it for us. Also, cognitive dissonance doesn't mean what you think it means. I would say that you were a fantastic example of it in action but that means you would need to actually recognize (in some form) the incongruity of your own silly, self-contradictory beliefs and/or be bothered by it.

The funny part about saying that "The Devil"™ runs things down here is funny. The reason it's funny is that even when I was a fairly religious person I could never quite figure out why "The Devil"™ was so evil.
He disobeyed "God"™, but that was about it. Apparently, now, he runs a place called Hel or Helle(or if you prefer the misspelled version: hille, hillja, hell, etc...). He's also able to tempt us (or if you wish, we let him tempt us, giving him even less power) to do things; who knows what though. He's also supposed to be a fallen angel that many think to be red and ugly with horns. It should also be noted that Hell (Hel) has lakes of fire (which sounds cool; almost like Hawaii), but seems to lack all the horrific stuff you hear of elsewhere.
I'm just wondering, why Lucifer (The Bringer of Light) is so "Evil"™? Also, last time I checked "Free Will"™ was sitting around; so if "The Devil"™ runs Earth, why do we need that? His role greatly differs throughout the Christian realm of knowledge as well as those that are linked (like Judaism, Islam, etc...). The idea of a bad guy against the ultimate good guy sent here or another place are in many religions world wide. Some of those religions pre-date Christianity by more than a thousand years and Judaism by hundreds (if not more). Sometimes these "figureheads" have been concentrated into one form as they were once in the form of many figureheads, besides "God" and "the Devil".
There is a litany of things attributed to: Satan, ha-sataan(Judaism has no "real" direct version), Baal Davar, the Devil, Lucifer, Lord of Flies, Dragon (or serpent; is "believed" to be the serpent in the Garden of Eden), Beelzubub (if you like the demon storyline; not a Mormon thing), Iblis, Shaitan, Jinn, Ying-Yang (pick one), Vishnu (atleast one aspect), Set, Apep,Sammael, Belial, ad nauseum...
Anyway, he disagreed with God "about something"; the "about something" depends on the flavor you belong to.
To cut it short: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism... They all suffer from the same problem: cognitive dissonance. Not a one holds up to a double-blind scientific experiment, let alone a simple thought experiment. If we have a "God" they most certainly are not prescient or omnipotent. The fact that I can post this kills one half of the logic, the other logic "free will" seems to be negated by every law and fact of science ever put together. You have choice, but it most certainly is not absolute.



If you were formally religious I am surprised you don't understand why the Devil is evil. I'll elaborate on this..

In the beginning, when man still dwelled in the Garden of Eden, he existed in a perfect state of grace with God. There was no such thing as sin, or death. Adam and Eve, the first humans, walked and talked with God face to face. God, to test their hearts, only gave them one command..not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He promised them that if they did so they would surely die.

Now the devil enters the picture. God had made him the most beautiful of all the angels, and gave him great power and dominion. The devil was soon corrupted by his own vanity however, because he started to think "I will be like the Most High" and desired to have his throne beside Gods. His sin was/is pride. Because of this, he was cast down to Earth.

Now God gave Earth to Adam. He was its ruler. Satan knew this, and knew that if he could corrupt him, he would gain power over the whole world because he would gain power over Adam. So the devil came to them and said that God was lying about the apple. That, not only would they not die, but they would become like God by eating it. After eating, Adam and Eve lost their innocence and the state of grace they enjoyed with God by sinning, and brought death into the world. From that moment on they were mortal beings with mortal needs.

Satan has been the ruler of this world since then. His power, however, was broken at Calvary when Christ died on the cross. Christ, the new Adam, lived a sinless life. Being born of a virgin, he did not inherit the sin of Adam. By living a sinless life, he redeemed mankind and gave all people on Earth a way to know God, His Father, through Him. When He died He went down to hell, battered down the gates, and took the power of death from the devil. When He was resurrected, He liberated mankind from the power of death, and was the first fruits of the world to come.

Now, Satan is still the ruler but on the run. He knows his time is short and growing ever shorter. His last shot is when the antichrist comes to power. Now, free will is fairly simple. You have the choice to obey or disobey Gods commands. God doesn't make you love Him. All those who delight in wickedness, however, will be punished on judgment day. Hell was not created for humans, but anyone who throws their lot in with the devil will earn the devils reward. His sin was pride, and so too are the ones who reject God similarly prideful, for they believe his lies and reject the truth.

That about sums it up. I would ascribe some cognitive dissonance to your post also, for your conclusions have seemingly been pulled from a hat. How does posting what you did negate anything about Gods omniscience, and how do the arbitrary rules of science say anything about free will? You may want to read about determinism vs free will for some background before you answer.

>> ^shinyblurry:

From a Christian perspective, the message itself is ridiculous because there is no way for human beings to create an ideal society. It doesn't matter if it is a democracy or a dictatorship. The ruler of this world is the Devil. Until Jesus returns, mankind will be subject to his rule, culminating when the Antichrist comes to power. This man does not understand the message and I doubt he is a real Christian.
As for all the wonderful people calling for Christians to disappear, etc, I'll make you a deal. If you don't use this guy as an example for Christians, I won't use you as an example for Atheists.


The funny part about saying that "The Devil"™ runs things down here is funny. The reason it's funny is that even when I was a fairly religious person I could never quite figure out why "The Devil"™ was so evil.

He disobeyed "God"™, but that was about it. Apparently, now, he runs a place called Hel or Helle(or if you prefer the misspelled version: hille, hillja, hell, etc...). He's also able to *tempt* us (or if you wish, *we* let him tempt us, giving him even less power) to do things; who knows what though. He's also supposed to be a fallen angel that many think to be red and ugly with horns. It should also be noted that Hell (Hel) has lakes of fire (which sounds cool; almost like Hawaii), but seems to lack all the horrific stuff you hear of elsewhere.

I'm just wondering, why Lucifer (The Bringer of Light) is so "Evil"™? Also, last time I checked "Free Will"™ was sitting around; so if "The Devil"™ runs Earth, why do we need that? His role greatly differs throughout the Christian realm of knowledge as well as those that are linked (like Judaism, Islam, etc...). The idea of a bad guy against the ultimate good guy sent here or another place are in many religions world wide. Some of those religions pre-date Christianity by more than a thousand years and Judaism by hundreds (if not more). Sometimes these "figureheads" have been concentrated into one form as they were once in the form of many figureheads, besides "God" and "the Devil".

There is a litany of things attributed to: Satan, ha-sataan(Judaism has no "real" direct version), Baal Davar, the Devil, Lucifer, Lord of Flies, Dragon (or serpent; is "believed" to be the serpent in the Garden of Eden), Beelzubub (if you like the demon storyline; not a Mormon thing), Iblis, Shaitan, Jinn, Ying-Yang (pick one), Vishnu (atleast one aspect), Set, Apep,Sammael, Belial, ad nauseum...

Anyway, he disagreed with God "about something"; the "about something" depends on the flavor you belong to.

To cut it short: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism... They all suffer from the same problem: cognitive dissonance. Not a one holds up to a double-blind scientific experiment, let alone a simple thought experiment. If we have a "God" they most certainly are not prescient or omnipotent. The fact that I can post this kills one half of the logic, the other logic "free will" seems to be negated by every law and fact of science ever put together. You have choice, but it most certainly is not absolute.

Hehehe careful, he might call you a fascist like he did me! I was thinking something along the same lines though, but not something like a poll test...those are usually used for exclusionary reasons. I was thinking something more in line with a community gesture. I don't mind people having a vote that aren't necessarily smart in areas. What I find a problem is that most people do not vote. In fact, the lowest voting demographic are the lowest earners: the lowest 20% earners have a 36.4% turn out. Those people are basically under represented in democracy. There are many reasons why this is the case, but the most important reasons is that it doesn't hold much value in peoples minds. I have come to imagine that this is because it is "free", and something free has little value in your mind. After the wheels of the government have been spinning for so long, I think there is a complacence that comes over the voting population.

If you look at this data, it doesn't look good. Voter turn out from 1824 - 2008 has been on a jumpy decline. And even at its best, at 75% or so, that is still not a majority vote when a vote is achieved (50% of 75% = 37.5%). My idea was to have some sort of event, some sort of right of passage if you will so that not voting would seem like you wasted that old time back in the past and add as an extra motivation factor in fighting against government corruption. Also, it takes the arbitrary nature of birth out of the equations, and only people willing to make a small sacrifice would get those extra set of rights that we all take for granted now.

This is all just a thought experiment at this point, I think it has a lot of merit though, the same with your idea as well. As with any, there are pitfalls and things that you don't anticipate. Most assuredly, my system wasn't to exclude poor people, in fact, in the example I was drawing from, the poor people had the highest voter turn out...for the rich it wasn't worth the time to earn the right to vote. Then again, wealth shouldn't have anything to do with your right structure, only that persons commitment to be a good citizen, however he chooses to do so.


In reply to this comment by sillma:
I would test peoples knowledge of politics, finance and such to see if they're capable of understanding what they're voting for, I'd expect around 5-10% of the population to pass it. After heavy studying of course.