I think you guys are forgetting the obvious dillema of dense soils, and lack of friction in the world.

And lets not forget the miners who spend day and night gathering ore but never seem to make any dent in the side of the mountains.

How would you suggest the miners never get far if not for a super-dense geoid?

Why do we quote old politicians as if they weren't speaking from a political point of view?

I imagine obama would have said the same popular opinion back then as he says now.

gss hv t b n ss, bt sn't ths bng rptd n t mny tms?

I agree, the best things in life i want to do every day.

By taking this seriously, you're letting them win.

Well as an artist of word mockery, I am appreciative.

Of the 3000 viewers of this post, only 1% truly appreciated my dirty humor and quasi-intelligence mocking. And of that 1%, 50% of them weren't smart enough to figure out if I was speaking facetiously.

Hell, 20% of you don't even consider feces and facetious to sound close enough alike to figure out the joke.

Damn, I'm disappointed.

My comment was made for dirtier minds, I cannot WORK LIKE THIS! I AM AN ARTEEST.

Comment #61 would be more vibrant with a pique of brownish tint to draw out the stubborn facetiousness that taints his canvas of words.

I think to understand this piece first we must get into the mind of the video maker.

We must understand the context of the piece as it was presented, with a good 2 and half minutes of build up, with praises being given, and estimations being proffered.

The climax comes when the video of the procession of abstracted people going about their dutiful compulsion of movement through a small window through which an opportunity for refreshment from the cultural divide presents itself through the exponential increase of world-wary travelers passing by unbeknownst to them a play unfolds in another objects eye.

The contrast between the fine art of deception and the crass belligerence of stark realizations from day to day existence is heart felt when we're told, "Hopefully these numbers will wake people up".

We're left to wonder who these people are? Are they the the ignorant plebeians, or the elitest connoisseur, or just a mindless statement about mindless things that mindlessness cannot solve without the attention from the people.

Overall I give this video a A+++ in tortured logic, irrational experiments, and true irony of message. To those it wishes to inform it fails, to those it doesn't wish to speak to, it wins.

After all, the message is that people and art are only cultured to the extent to which they wish to perceive meaning in the world around them.

Even the artist, at the end, recognizes this. Even this commentation is strewn with incomprehensible rhetoric that one can choose to perceive as more, or write off as meaningless jibber-jabber from an unrealistic elitist.

I think someone should make a new razor.

MY razor: The most boring reality is likely the most probable reality.

As in, it's most probable that universes where time travel were possible were canceled about by paradox, and only those that were incapable of time travel still exist.

Boring, but true.

That last quote sounds like placebo side effects.

I troll with bated breath.

Tis a shame

A point? Apparently not.

But if you could read the subtext, you'd hear a small voice screaming for you to defend your position in some manner that someone (me) could agree with you.

But you can't do that can you? Are there to many words to you that contain emotionally charged vehicles for your philosophical reenforcement.

It's apparent that whether other people were spot on in calling you a psychopath, or whether calling you a psychopath turned you into one, doesn't seem to matter at this point.

Of course, theres two types of psycho paths, those that see things that arn't there, and those that..well..nevermind, you're right, theres only one kind of psychopath, and currently you are it.

No tag backs!

I think moon bat has never seen the internet before.
As I've figured out awhile ago, it's all fun and games until someone takes it serious.

Moonbat seems to have no sense of humor, which is a shame because the deepest confrontations only get solved when people laugh about each other's stereotyping.

I know it's not fair to gang up on Moonbat, but as it seems apparent, moonbat is the lone objectivist, surrounded by collectivists.

This is an ironic situation, one that really should make us all stop and think about it for a moment. Is it any wonder why this bootstrap philosophy of individuality is often such a popular conception to have?

Our society will never stop producing loners, and as someone pointed out, psychopaths.

This too should make us stop and wonder at the power of words and philosophies and how they adhere to individuals based on their position in society.

A philosophy for all man does not exist, one because people are not created equal, and two, people will never be treated as equal. Clones, yes, people, no.

People that receive societal's warmth will tend to favor philosophies that support societies growth. Those that do not, will favor philosophies that support the individual.

As I stated before, and which was met with flippant disregard by moonbat, is that these two realities coexist and are real.

It's not a supposition as should be readily seen from A) All humans are not created equal, and B) All humans are not treated equally.

If you disagree with either of those, speak now. Ergo sunt, theres separate philosophies for separate people.

this conversation is still about how we value things when we're not around to observe them.

this conversation is still about how we value things when we're not around to observe them.

I think sacrificialgoat proved that the internet makes people psychopathic. As opposed to empathic.

The ultimate question is whether suicide can be considered a selfless act.

I've always miss read her name as Aryan Rand.

For most of my existence I only remembered the name as such, and knew nothing about it till a few years ago.

I've never considered myself a philosophic fashioniste, and the closest i came to looking directly into philosophy was reading about stoicism.

Philosophy has always been a two headed monster. In that some people adopt a philosophy in an attempt to change the world around them, and others have used philosophy as a way of rationalizing the world around them.

The difference is in that one sees the potential of reality and the other simply trys to codify current reality. I think that it's the same as idealism and pragmatism.

We all know that the founding fathers of America wanted all beings to be born and created, and treated equally, but reality suggests this isn't true. And I've yet to come to a conclusion as to whether a delusion of equality is a good thing.

We can do a lot of harm when we expect more from individuals than they're capable of, and we can also keep people from realizing their potential by smothering them with platitudes.

With all that said, I don't like ayn rand, but I also don't have any real basis to this opinion except on what she helped foster and create. The only people i know that liked her stuff seemed like selfish and emotionally troubled people.

The emotionally troubled people pick up on it because they've tried to work in society and find themselves put down time and again, and it's likely a panacea for their troubles. They say to themselves, "If only other people could see my self-worth, then they wouldn't harm me as so".

The selfish on the other hand use it as a way to justify the means. As they can easily suggest that they were just doing things that made them feel better, even when what they're doing is off loading grief, pain and other emotions onto other people.

I suppose this view point is relativist. Yet I can't really pull myself away from the idea that finding a way to effectively value the way in which we currently live, and not the potential of evolution, is still a very needful trait, and if we ever lose it, we enter just another dystopia.