I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. I am saying that the normalization of homosexuality into a culture is a logical pathway to the normalization of pederasty in a culture, which we have a historical example of in the greeks. I am also saying that it is deviant sexual behavior which opens the door to other kinds of deviant sexual behavior, and that in itself is eroding the moral fabric of this country.

It is exactly because I care about homosexuals that I will openly say it is immoral, and against Gods law. It would in fact be a sin if I didn't say it. Any law which restricts my, or anyone elses ability to say it is unconstitutional. The absurdity is inherent in the ultra politically correct environments this kind of thing always leads to, as marbles posted about.

There is nothing hateful in stating the truth. There are admittedly hateful ways to state the truth, and it is not something I am going out of my way to confront people about. However, that doesn't preclude me from speaking up about it. If homosexuals have the right to trumpet their way of thinking and push it on the American culture, I have the equal right to say it is wrong and something that should be avoided at all costs. It's always interesting that a moral relativist always allows for every kind of moral position except for the kind that takes an absolute position.




>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.

I've only been into motogp since the last part of last season. It's an awesome thing to watch for the close racing and all the overtakes and tactics and excitement. Simoncelli was a new gp rider last year and I've watched him change and develop and really start to show his real talent. Despite being far too big for the bikes he had a knack of going fast in a really exciting way. I didn't know him at all, but I did like him as a rider and he was always interesting to watch.

It's often said that people enjoy watching racing for the crashes. That if motor racing is made too safe it sanitises and ruins it. That if there is no risk there is no excitement. Bollox. I watch F1 and MotoGP to see the skill of the riders and drivers. To see the race unfold. To see how they better their rivals on the track. Of course crashes are going to happen, particularly on the bikes. If they aren't crashing it's questionable if they're pushing hard enough. Simoncelli certainly knew about crashing as he was pushing 110% from the start before his skill level had risen to meet his ego. As his time in MotoGP has gone on he's got better and better. He was going to win races and going to win a championship. I'm genuinely saddened by what's happened. 24 is no age to go.

My heart goes out to Colin Edwards and Valentino Rossi. They must be going through hell right now.

Let's not forget that comparing this situation to countries like Syria and Egypt excludes that fact that here, cops aren't killing the peaceful protesters. While there are similarities, don't trick yourself into thinking that many of these people would've still shown up on Wall Street if they thought they might lose their lives for it.

That said, it's always interesting that we complain about the police or the protesters first. Time and time again, the wealthy and privileged watch from the balcony while the lower classes expend their energy fighting each other.

It's nonsense like this post that causes these kind of discussions to devolve into mudslinging matches. There is no credible evidence that fires caused the collapse either. Sure some fancy physics modelling produces something that could be a scenario for the collapse but please don't expect me to believe that this is proof.
There are no mountains of proof because the evidence was removed from the scene. It's all just theories. You like the official version. I don't buy it. That doesn't make me religious or a conspiracy theorist any more than you.>> ^lucky760:

>> Exactly how does some office furniture burn for 7 hours...
explain how a burning stack of coffee filters generates the same heat as a truck filled with 9000 gallons of fuel
Some office furniture? A burning stack of coffee filters? Because... that's all anyone can ever find in any high rise building, right? Typical.
It's simply fascinating the lengths some people will go to keep their death grip on the ideas they want -- need so badly to believe are fact.
It's very similar to the manner in which a religious person will vehemently defend that their god is the one real god, but these conspiracy theorists are exponentially worse. Not only do they not have credible evidence to support their outrageous beliefs, but they scoff with blissful ignorance in the face of a mountain of proof explaining why they're wrong.
I believe most of these folks, possibly due to psychological and/or personality disorders, just lack the ability or desire or courage to even consider the notion that the likelihood of their theory being reality is profoundly improbable.
Show them a black stone and they'll scream at you why it's white (and that you and everyone else on Earth are in collusion to try convincing them that it's black). That's human nature for you. Not always quality, but always interesting.

>> Exactly how does some office furniture burn for 7 hours...
explain how a burning stack of coffee filters generates the same heat as a truck filled with 9000 gallons of fuel

Some office furniture? A burning stack of coffee filters? Because... that's all anyone can ever find in any high rise building, right? Typical.

It's simply fascinating the lengths some people will go to keep their death grip on the ideas they want -- need so badly to believe are fact.

It's very similar to the manner in which a religious person will vehemently defend that their god is the one real god, but these conspiracy theorists are exponentially worse. Not only do they not have credible evidence to support their outrageous beliefs (their primary evidence usually seems to be in the form of questions), but they scoff with blissful ignorance in the face of a mountain of proof explaining why they're wrong.

I believe most of these folks, possibly due to psychological and/or personality disorders, just lack the ability or desire or courage to even consider the notion that the likelihood of their theory being reality is profoundly improbable.

Show them a black stone and they'll scream at you why it's white (and that you and everyone else on Earth are in collusion to try convincing them that it's black). That's human nature for you. Not always *quality, but always interesting.

National Geographic is always interesting

>> ^smooman:

>> ^jmzero:
PS: Yes, I'm sure I've made some spelling or grammatical errors in this post. No, I'm not going to proofread it. No, that doesn't make me a hypocrite.
i think that quite pointedly makes you a hypocrite but i digress =)


Let me clarify my position by quoting my own comment: "I don't believe posts need to be perfect; I just think some effort should be made, and I do make some effort to write reasonably."

I wrote that specifically to clarify why I don't think I'm being a hypocrite, but I'll clarify a bit further because, as I suspected, someone is always interested in calling hypocrite on the guy who critiques spelling. I believe that my actions and words are consistent with my position above. Again: I don't think people should feel like they need to spend time proofreading posts or should feel like they need to write perfectly; I just think that it's a good thing to put some effort into basic spelling and grammar.

Maybe you disagree with that position. Maybe you think I should put more efforts into my posts. Maybe you can find a post by me that has a lot of mistakes. None of those things would make me a hypocrite; I do try to use proper spelling and grammar, and thus I am - to simplify - practicing what I preach.

I feel like I'm in the minority for loving Portal 2. It isn't as small and crisp as the original Portal, but Portal 2 far exceeds its predecessor in richness and diversity.

As I played through I couldn't help but think of all the non-Portal games I've played, and I really couldn't think of one that was better. This one doesn't have the consistent pace from the previous game but it is always interesting, and that is a rare feat.

Honestly, I think Portal 2 > Portal. They both have their strong points, but I just never felt challenged by Portal... it was 75% tutorial, then it was over. It isn't that Portal 2 is "difficult", but it very creatively forces non-standard problem solving skills. When I look at both games, that is where I see the true quality coming from.

Portal 2 is probably the most enjoyable game I've ever played, and I really don't care if it makes me uncool to say that. =P

In reply to this comment by Zifnab:
Thanks for the douplepromote

In reply to this comment by legacy0100:
Hoooly SHIITT THIS IS WINNNNNNNN

*doublepromote

No no, Thank YOU for always sifting great videos!!! Your submissions are always interesting and worthy of attention.

I've been watching this chicks videos for years now. They're always interesting and really well thought out with genuine research backing them. Doesn't make me wanna do drugs though.

Hmm.. "The kind of paranoia of Gaddafis innner circle.." Lets take a similar tour under the white house, the pentagon, 10.downing street, and see what kind of "Paranoia" resides in far less.. compromised countries, or how about the outside of the any Israeli embassy.. uh.. anywhere in the world..

I'm not denying Gaddafi is batshit insane, but these measures are seriously no more than standard precautions that any government makes for key personell. It's always interesting to see these things exposed, but seriously, I would expect nothing less from a dictator like Gaddafi.

I like Pinker, he's always interesting. *science

Always interesting to see a good interview.

Incidentally, this is who rougy really is
http://videosift.com/video/The-End-Of-Morality-and-The-Anarchy-Of-The-Soul?loadcomm=1#comment-1063463
http://videosift.com/video/The-End-Of-Morality-and-The-Anarchy-Of-The-Soul?loadcomm=1#comment-1063531
http://videosift.com/video/Jessi-Slaughter-on-Good-Morning-America?loadcomm=1#comment-1040292
http://videosift.com/video/Jessi-Slaughter-on-Good-Morning-America?loadcomm=1#comment-1040293
http://videosift.com/video/Gordon-Ramsay-s-Perfect-Scrambled-Eggs?loadcomm=1#comment-644095
http://videosift.com/video/Wikileaks-U-S-Apache-killing-civilians-in-Baghdad?loadcomm=1#comment-971348
http://videosift.com/video/Powell-Eviscerates-McCains-Negative-Smear-Campaign?loadcomm=1#comment-549763
http://videosift.com/video/The-Chronicles-Of-The-Obamessiah-Volume-I-The-Adulteress?loadcomm=1#comment-531070
http://gwiz665.videosift.com/?loadcomm=1#comment-1041622
http://videosift.com/video/Does-the-world-need-nuclear-energy-TED-Debate?loadcomm=1#comment-1017215
Really just check out http://videosift.com/search?q=&t=c&u=rougy&o=lovotes&vmin=&vmax=&sh=&l=&n=&b=&submit=Search

Always interesting to hear someone talk about *politics, and give what sounds like a coherent philosophy, and yet not have it be obviously categorized as left or right.

>> ^ponceleon:

Great message, absolutely SHITTY camerawork. Who the FUCK decided that "shakycam" is good and why the fuck to others seem to agree with them?


Maybe the same dude that decided subtle background violins and a desaturate filter would punch it up. You know, in case the viewer can't tell how they should feel about it.

But of course that's all nitpicking. He has a great point. It's always interesting to me how the private morality of Christians seems to have evolved far beyond the actual moral teachings of their religion. Most truly don't believe that a man should be condemned for the sins of his progenitors (except original sin). Or that their sins can be relieved by scapegoating (except on Jesus). Or that love and obedience can be demanded by a "benevolent father" on threat of torture.

Even they find the principles behind their core teachings to be backwards and unacceptable anywhere else in life. But somehow it's all fine when god does it.