>> ^heropsycho:

So much for civil discourse.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business


It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.
You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?
But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.
I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."
Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner



??? care to point out where I was uncivil in my reply towards you? What a pathetic cop-out.

So much for civil discourse.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business


It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.
You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?
But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.
I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."
Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner

I dislike the catholic church as an institution, but not catholics..and it isn't to say there are no Christian catholics..but in any case, what's crap is the attitude problem..civil discourse is already at a minimum in society..but its becoming culturally acceptable to be intolerant towards religious beliefs and christians in general because of inanity like this..to just openly mock and deride people for what they believe..this is just another disrespectful egotist lowering the bar by vomiting up hate speech against people who have faith. if this is all the respect an atheist can come up with for his fellow man, it doesn't go very far in convincing me of his so called superior truth..it really just shows the whole ignoble farce for what it is..

>> ^bareboards2:
As the person who wrote the description, let me assure you that you have interpreted the "they" incorrectly.
I meant crazy fundamentalists who have a deep need to control the world. Regardless of what religion.
I copied the wiki article and pointed out that this sentence was a deep relief to me: Although many authors have described such influence (particularly of Reconstructionism),full adherents to Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.
So there is my proof that this is what I meant.
I am also not an atheist. I believe there are things we can't possibly understand with our puny restricted human brains. I respect the personal choices of individuals -- I would never argue someone out of their personal experience of the divine.
What I don't like is when someone uses their personal experience as an excuse to control others, to define "morality" for others. This guy. Mormons working tirelessly on Prop 8. Parents trying to keep any mention of homosexuality out of schools, which perpetuates the bullying and the shaming.
And I believe that when atheists attack someone's belief as irrational, it is no different than a Christian attempting to force their worldview on the atheist. I think atheists take their justifiable anger at Christians attempting to -- and succeeding at -- controlling others through shame, laws, wars and go too far with it -- I don't believe it is necessary to talk someone out of their personal religious experience, IF IF IF that personal religious experience isn't affecting the atheist in any way. I think atheists need to learn to let folks be, and focus on facts -- overturning Prop 8, booting fundamentalist School Board members out.
Them there's my two cents. Sorry you have felt beat up here. The Sift is a great place, with some really really REALLY smart and funny people. Including some, in my opinion, angry atheists. It is part of the Sift's charm, if you can treat it like entertainment.
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^quantumushroom:
From that link:

LGBT Activists in Uganda point to a virulently anti-gay March 2009 conference 2009 put on by three American Evangelical activists for inciting the latest round of violence and intimidation against the local LGBT community. Among the three were Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is a protege of ex-gay advocate Richard Cohen. Lively, who blamed gay men for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, proudly declared his talk as being a “nuclear bomb” against LGBT advocacy in Africa. (You can read about all of the events of 2009 and early 2010 here.)
So atheists have no problem using these fringe kooks as representatives of true Christendom, but get insulted when it's pointed out 20th century mass murderers were all leaders of communist regimes? Death toll: 100 million and counting

The whole thread was created under that presumption. "I am flabbergasted. I keep thinking they can't go any more off the deep end." They as in all Christians. As in all Christians are kooks. I don't know if this site is just pro-atheist but there is a definite undertone of intolerance and bigotry here against Christians. What happened to civil discourse? Oh yeah, this is the internet. Nevermind.



That's cool.. thanks for enlightening me here. I didn't mean to cast aspersions but I guess that shows how easy it can be to misinterpet peoples intentions/beliefs, which really underscores your point I think. I wouldn't say I feel beat up, just that there seemed to be a tone here. I'll go with your assesment for now.

Personally, I don't tell people what to believe. That is what free will is for. It's up to them to draw their own conclusions. If someone asks, I will answer. If someone is mistating, I will correct. Other than that, to each his own. I will speak the truth as I know it, and hopefully someone will listen, but that's as far as I go. If you try to force something on someone, it just pushes them farther away.

As the person who wrote the description, let me assure you that you have interpreted the "they" incorrectly.

I meant crazy fundamentalists who have a deep need to control the world. Regardless of what religion.

I copied the wiki article and pointed out that this sentence was a deep relief to me: Although many authors have described such influence (particularly of Reconstructionism),full adherents to Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.

So there is my proof that this is what I meant.

I am also not an atheist. I believe there are things we can't possibly understand with our puny restricted human brains. I respect the personal choices of individuals -- I would never argue someone out of their personal experience of the divine.

What I don't like is when someone uses their personal experience as an excuse to control others, to define "morality" for others. This guy. Mormons working tirelessly on Prop 8. Parents trying to keep any mention of homosexuality out of schools, which perpetuates the bullying and the shaming. edit - And of course when the Bible is used to trump science. That gives me the screaming mimis.

And I believe that when atheists attack someone's belief as irrational, it is no different than a Christian attempting to force their worldview on the atheist. I think atheists take their justifiable anger at Christians attempting to -- and succeeding at -- controlling others through shame, laws, wars and go too far with it -- I don't believe it is necessary to talk someone out of their personal religious experience, IF IF IF that personal religious experience isn't affecting the atheist in any way. I think atheists need to learn to let folks be, and focus on facts -- overturning Prop 8, booting fundamentalist School Board members out.

Them there's my two cents. Sorry you have felt beat up here. The Sift is a great place, with some really really REALLY smart and funny people. Including some, in my opinion, angry atheists. It is part of the Sift's charm, if you can treat it like entertainment.





>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^quantumushroom:
From that link:

LGBT Activists in Uganda point to a virulently anti-gay March 2009 conference 2009 put on by three American Evangelical activists for inciting the latest round of violence and intimidation against the local LGBT community. Among the three were Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is a protege of ex-gay advocate Richard Cohen. Lively, who blamed gay men for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, proudly declared his talk as being a “nuclear bomb” against LGBT advocacy in Africa. (You can read about all of the events of 2009 and early 2010 here.)
So atheists have no problem using these fringe kooks as representatives of true Christendom, but get insulted when it's pointed out 20th century mass murderers were all leaders of communist regimes? Death toll: 100 million and counting


The whole thread was created under that presumption. "I am flabbergasted. I keep thinking they can't go any more off the deep end." They as in all Christians. As in all Christians are kooks. I don't know if this site is just pro-atheist but there is a definite undertone of intolerance and bigotry here against Christians. What happened to civil discourse? Oh yeah, this is the internet. Nevermind.

>> ^quantumushroom:
From that link:

LGBT Activists in Uganda point to a virulently anti-gay March 2009 conference 2009 put on by three American Evangelical activists for inciting the latest round of violence and intimidation against the local LGBT community. Among the three were Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is a protege of ex-gay advocate Richard Cohen. Lively, who blamed gay men for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, proudly declared his talk as being a “nuclear bomb” against LGBT advocacy in Africa. (You can read about all of the events of 2009 and early 2010 here.)
So atheists have no problem using these fringe kooks as representatives of true Christendom, but get insulted when it's pointed out 20th century mass murderers were all leaders of communist regimes? Death toll: 100 million and counting



The whole thread was created under that presumption. "I am flabbergasted. I keep thinking they can't go any more off the deep end." They as in all Christians. As in all Christians are kooks. I don't know if this site is just pro-atheist but there is a definite undertone of intolerance and bigotry here against Christians. What happened to civil discourse? Oh yeah, this is the internet. Nevermind.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker I think I'm just about ready to write you off as someone worth replying to.

I asked how you thought what Beck said compared to blood libel, and you said:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The use of propoganda by a totalitarian government to inspire hatred and justify violence towards a genetic race is not comparable to a private citizen's non-violent opinions being presented in a public forum as opposition to a differing political philosophy that others accepted independantly. There is no equivalency.

When I challenge you on your assertion, you deny the assertion:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

No - I described what Glenn Beck said, which was necessary because of the inaccurate, incomplete citation and the subsequent misinterpretations of others. I made no statement about it being 'violent, or non-violent'. If we are to talk of making assertions, I will kindly request that you cease making inaccurate assertions about what I say.

(emphasis in both is mine)

This is the fundamental problem I have with you. Whatever fact someone uses as the basis of a conclusion, you accuse the speaker of fabricating that fact, even if it's trivially and incontrovertibly validated.

It's just not conducive to civil discourse to casually accuse people of lying. Assume I misunderstood, and just try making your point more explicitly.

What did you mean by "non-violent opinion"? Were you talking about Glenn Beck there? After all, that was what I had asked you about.

Is that not what he is doing? He looks at the motives of theists, deconstructs them, and uses them as a platform to criticize their behavior. He presents an exaggerated and stilted strawman. "Theists do X & Y bad things, so they are wrong..." complete with 'mean' pictures for theists. Such behavior mirrors the emotional blackmail of some theists. "You do X & Y bad things, so you are wrong..." My conclusion was more of a tongue in cheek tweak of that rather amusing hypocrisy. Where the arguments are passing each other in terminology is the metaphysical level on which the subject matter rests.

That's such a distortion of QualiaSoup's video that I have to wonder if we watched the same one.

Let me be clear. I am not an atheist or agnostic. My disagreements with the video and with QualiaSoup's overall philosophical position run very deep. In fact, my first comment lays out a number of them and avers to others. Ideologically, we are opposed. I have every reason to point out flaws in his video.

Yet it is not flawed in the way you claim. He does not say that theists are wrong because they do X & Y bad things. Rather, he claims that they are wrong, lays out his argument as to why theists are wrong, and then proceeds to criticize the bad behavior of a subset of religious believers.

I don't recall having erroneously mixed those issues - but if you interpret it that way then for the sake of clarity I'll address it. I was pointing out the hypocritical nature of the argument in this vid, and then made a general bemoaning complaint about why atheists keep feeling the need to slap religion in general, blanket terms. I make no commentary on why atheists reject religious truth claims. My comments are wholly confined to the topic of 'why do people feel the need to behave badly when dealing with other schools of thought?" The final bit in this vid could be directed as much to atheists as theists... "If you attack someone because they don't share your beliefs, you're invited to consider what that says about you and the values you claim to embrace."

How is it that you think QualiaSoup is behaving badly? If this were a political discussion, this video would be seen as markedly civil compared to most debate and commentary. He is not blindly asserting his opinion or venting his spleen. He lays out his arguments in a calm, logical manner. He doesn't obfuscate or make it difficult to figure out on what premises his arguments stand or fall. This is not a piece of demagoguery or propaganda. As far as I can tell, the video falls well within the bounds of civil discourse.



I accept that premise. I also point out that I never stated it was 'unmitigated good'. I said, "They do great good". That cannot be denied.

If you mean that "American and US religiously based charities do great good in the early 21st century," then maybe that's a supportable position. I have great reservations about it--I do not think that attempting to destroy indigenous religions in Africa and South America or fighting condom use in Africa are anything like goods--but the cultural and legal restrictions on acceptable church behavior act as a deterrent against the abuses seen past and present when churches have significantly greater power--as, for example, in the rampant child abuse in Catholic boarding schools in Ireland up through the 80's.

I have great respect for someone who can sop calmly put forward points and reasons like this in the face of those who just don't listen. Those there were being very attentive and it was great to see such civil discourse, but there were times when some just hadn't listened to the POINT he was making with examples. He very calmly handled that, where I'm sure inside he wanted to scream "I JUST TOLD YOU! I JUST ILLUSTRATED A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS WORKS... GOD YOU'RE STUPID.. LISTEN!"

While I agree with the intent, this seems like rather ineffectual rhetoric to me. The fact that 40% of the population are mothers, and most of them have had an abortion, does no do much to address the issues people have with abortion.

The problem is it's not "politically feasible" to make the obvious point that their is not rational reason to oppose abortion up to 20wks, or in cases of terminal congenital conditions, or where the health of the mother is at risk. If this was sayable then we have to acknowledge that, the theistic counter arguments are irrational, and nobody in politics wants to get caught saying that.

The abortion "debate" is just another example of how religion, and our cultural deference to it, destroys civil discourse.

To modify the Constitution is extremely difficult and the Amendments must be ratified. You're talking about an incredibly difficult process that has very little to do with the democratic process. But, yes, there is a way to change the Constitution. I just wanted to stop you before we started going down the road of "the Constitution is a living document" shit that is a tired and laborious argument.

Hell, Jefferson wanted government, laws and debt to be generational and change every 19 years or so. Good thing he was in Paris at that time and Madison was his buffer to the Constitution.


"Nobody can deny that gun ownership is a right which can (and from time to time does) harm others - can you? One may argue the extent and potential of this, but I thought even libertarians (actually, especially libertarians) had the principle that the government can't intrude on an individual's rights UNLESS they are in violation of other people's right to live."

51% of the population cannot vote your right to bear arms away. The government cannot take this right away, either. But, if an individual takes his gun and shoots someone, he has used his right to encroached on another person's rights which makes him wrong. What is it that you're not getting? Sorry, that sounded harsh. Let me rephrase. What is it I'm not properly communicating.

Also, I have no idea where you live. And, yes, I wouldn't presume to know anything about your country, because I most likely do not know anything about it. Civil discourse is great. I welcome it. I apologize if I'm sounding snarky. I just feel like Sisyphus pushing a rock of Libertarianism up the mountain of Leftist Authoritarians and it gets very, very tiring.

It's refreshing to see actual civilized discourse between two differing viewpoints, without all the shouting and name calling we typically see.

Civility is the key to any good dialogue, and this exchange passes the test. However, even in civil discourse we can find fundamentalism that cannot leave aside deep-rooted convictions, however flawed they may be.

Nobody wins in this type of debate, but at least the tempers were subdued.

Imagine if she was more like BillO. She would have been shouting "shut up" over him while he was trying to get his point across.

This interview is proof that civilized discourse can exist in the media even when their is disagreement. They both composed themselves very well. I wish more politically charged interviews were like this instead of the fuster-cluck that we normally get.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Why are the politicians so go damned stupid. Condie is an idiot to say that, so is McCain.
Come to think of that, hes going to be kicking himself for letting dizzies like "bomb bom bom" or "nations don't invade other nations" slip out like dribble from his morning lobotomy.


Only if people hear them. I still have doubts whether the Dems will run TV ads with those gems.

I hope they do. Raising the level of civil discourse isn't worth letting this man convince people he's "safe".