I take these "everything you thought you knew is wrong" presentations for the fluff-pieces that they are, Slate.com is full of them. This guy is just as glib and vague as any myth that people may be spouting. You want to dispel some misconceptions then do the research, like they did in the Wild West.

I noted he's a veteran but his attorney actually said there's no evidence he ever owned a firearm...um...WHAT?!?
I must agree with @Fairbs, without the actual comments and charges this is an inflammatory fluff piece with little actual information.

It's good to see him do some of that hard-hitting investigation into those stories that really matter in the world today instead of his usual fluff pieces.

What I find most interesting is not the DJs (who are unfunny idiots) or the woman (while it's sad, she was also clearly unstable that something as trivial as this would drive her to suicide).

It's the public reaction. When I first noticed this story, it was mentioned in a fluff piece in online news and the public reaction was "haha, what an idiot to be fooled like that". Then news of her suicide came through and the focus switched to a witch hunt on the DJs.

I'm willing to bet large sums of money that the people baying for their blood are the very same people who laughed about it a few days ago.

This is basically an opinion piece disguised as logical argumentation..here is the first unsupported assumption:

"doesn't reflect the way we tend to make moral judgements"

not relevant to proving the point. how we tend to make moral judgements is no reflection on whether something is objectively evil.

"the idea of evil is only relevant in proportion to an agents understanding"

This is a non sequiter and also begging the question. That is the entire point of the argument from morality, that evil is not relative to an agents understanding. That morality isn't relative, period. Since the argument is assuming what it is trying to prove, it is begging the question.

It goes on, asking "what do we make of a being that's decided that only one species is morally accountable?"

This is simply a red herring. It makes absolutely no difference and is not relevant what we think about God holding humans accountable and not animals. Our standard for moral behavior is not measured by the behavior of animals. The relevant difference is that the standard for our moral behavior is measured by what God chooses as morally correct.

It then leaps to the conclusion that "values are the result of the evaluation process". Says who? It continues "moral values are what *we* judge to be morally valuable or important"

Again, this is not a salient argument. Begging the question in a big way here. A proof that appeals to its conclusion as a premise does not actually prove that conclusion. So, just saying it like it is fact doesn't advance your agrument, it just shows that you have no argument..

This video seems completely devoid of logical argumentation. It's basically a fluff piece speaking to those who will instantly agree with anything that says God doesn't exist. It is certainly is not any kind of philosophical proof of anything.

Awww, they could of done a longer fluff piece on that!

Wow. So many comments about a fluff piece. Is this a bike shed moment in complicated times?

I thought the comment was perfectly appropriate given the conversation...

what was inappropriate was why a local news organization is doing a "story" in the format akin to late-night infomercials. This fluff-piece likely had promos too - I'd like to see those commercials trying to get people to tune in...

Fuck 60 minutes. This is such a BS fluff piece where the "two sides" presented in the debate are a TSA official and a kooky college professor looking guy. A whole goddamn section was dedicated to the reporter asking TSA agents if people get mad at them and what kind of wacky things they've seen. There was only 1 minute of actual news here when she was asking the TSA official about the large percentage of IED devices that are missed by screeners.

AND she takes the TSA dudes word about the full body images not being pornographic and being deleted after a few minutes. What a crock.

Anyone that isn't shaking with fear understands that the TSA is theater that that is a direct affront to personal liberty.

60 minutes is news for old people that don't want to know the truth.

I kinda fall on both sides of the fence on this one.

I don't know this show, but by the looks of the set and that it's just a 'via satellite' type interview, I would assume that it's a light sort of show, a fluff show... and so really isn't the place to be getting into stuff like that. Also the guy seems to be doing it out of some personal feelings he has over it, as if he doesn't think Mel should be allowed 'back in' to the world of films etc.

However

Mel has to expect it, come on... This is he first film (as an actor) since it all happened and so it's his first real time out there again... he has to expect it a bit... doesn't he? I can definitely see how it would piss him off no end, and for him he's lived with the repercussions for the whole 4ish years... to us, we heard all about it, and haven't really thought about it since then, so it seems like there is room to discuss it... I'm sure he's discussed it ad nauseum and has repented.

If this were an interview about him, about his life etc. then he'd talk about it I'm sure... but this is a fluff piece advertising the film...

I would be truly fascinated to be able to really talk and get honest answers from Mel in regards to the anti Semite comments... but you'll never hear anything other than what he wants to be perceived.

Which is sad, because I used to really, really like Mel as an actor, and loved Braveheart, thought his directorial chops were great... but I... I just don't know now...

Christ, who is the guy responsible for filling this video with 70% stock footage of stark looking landscapes or spacescapes that have nothing at all to do with the narrative. Can't be bothered to make diagrams that are actually related? I feel like this is a fluff piece that has scarcely advanced my actual understanding of the concepts, because it works at such a hand waving high level.

what an effing fluff piece.

I love when fluff pieces on *news shows go wrong.

They're basically holding a typical fluff piece interview - 'what are your plans for the future', 'talk about the next album', 'where will you be travelling', etc.

Please notice that the title says GTA SIX, not four.

Boy am I relieved to hear a real review on this game and not some ad-induced fluff piece the rest of the industry can't seem to spit out quick enough.