@ChaosEngine then please drop the condescending "not sure if you're serious" attitude towards dissenting opinion, specially if you want me to believe you're this "from A to Z" kind of person. Doesn't feel good to be on the receiving end, does it?

You can't connect the dots between politics and arguing fundamental human rights? So how do you propose "women being able to access medical services" should be done? Because you're not the only one here with noble goals, I want medical services to be accessible to women too.

The difference is that you probably agree with forcing millions of taxpayers to fund an "insurance" system run by government to pay for these services, while I want the costs of medicine to go down (thus making medical services accessible to women), and this only really happens when there's less government involvement in medicine, not more.

See? Politics.

>> ^Auger8:

So if it was a dead pixel why does it disappear behind her head and then reappear as she moves her head left and right and then stay stationary in the same exact place even after she is whisked away. Sorry but it looks a bullet hole to me. Damn close too.
>> ^shuac:
>> ^dedstick:
Watch just above her left ear at 0:05 and a dot appears which seems to coincide with the sound of a muffled pop....

Don't be silly, it's obviously a dead pixel. <eye roll>



Back. And to the left.

So if it was a dead pixel why does it disappear behind her head and then reappear as she moves her head left and right and then stay stationary in the same exact place even after she is whisked away. Sorry but it looks a bullet hole to me. Damn close too.
>> ^shuac:

>> ^dedstick:
Watch just above her left ear at 0:05 and a dot appears which seems to coincide with the sound of a muffled pop....

Don't be silly, it's obviously a dead pixel. <eye roll>

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^lucky760:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
@dag @lucky760
Inline bug report... There's 5 replies to my comment in this thread and I got exactly zero emails about them. The only reason I even noticed is because Obsidian's comment is in the Top Comments block.

I too've been getting emails every day. Check your spam folder and if you find emails there, please forward it with all the original headers to siftbot at videosift dot com.

Considering how long I was an Exchange admin, I'm kinda embarrassed I had to be told to check spam. There's a whole pile; I'll forward them momentarily.


Glad it was enough time that you are now mature enough to admit your oversight.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
@dag @lucky760
Inline bug report... There's 5 replies to my comment in this thread and I got exactly zero emails about them. The only reason I even noticed is because Obsidian's comment is in the Top Comments block.

I too've been getting emails every day. Check your spam folder and if you find emails there, please forward it with all the original headers to siftbot at videosift dot com.


Considering how long I was an Exchange admin, I'm kinda embarrassed I had to be told to check spam. There's a whole pile; I'll forward them momentarily.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

@dag @lucky760
Inline bug report... There's 5 replies to my comment in this thread and I got exactly zero emails about them. The only reason I even noticed is because Obsidian's comment is in the Top Comments block.


I too've been getting emails every day. Check your spam folder and if you find emails there, please forward it with all the original headers to siftbot at videosift dot com.

>> ^dedstick:

Watch just above her left ear at 0:05 and a dot appears which seems to coincide with the sound of a muffled pop....


Don't be silly, it's obviously a dead pixel. <eye roll>

Watch just above her left ear at 0:05 and a dot appears which seems to coincide with the sound of a muffled pop....

Never heard of her but if Bill ("Stamps dot com everybody") Burr rates her...

>> ^Aniatario:

Actually, after looking into a few pages it's far more likely that little dot is just a dead pixel. A real bullet would've done alot more damage.


I'm squinting as hard as I can. I checked out www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqQCl0XTZyM and didnt see it on that footage, though the resolution on that one is even worse so who knows. I always consider youtube comments pretty suspect, but it seemed to hold water on viewing! It also looks like a projection screen type set material from what I can tell, so I doubt there would be much for a bullet to do but pass through.

Actually, after looking into a few pages it's far more likely that little dot is just a dead pixel. A real bullet would've done alot more damage.

@shinyblurry

If you ask why God gave us the concept of right and wrong, could it be that He knew which behaviors were good for us and which were bad? If you ask why God gave us consequences, could it be that God wanted to discourage us from bad behavior?

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

He gave them an honest choice and it was their choice that created sin. What God allowed is the condition to exist where sin was possible.

He created us and our conditions such that 100% of us (or 100% minus two, I suppose) would break those rules. It’s in our nature to break God’s rules. God made both our nature and his rules. God’s fault.

Why did God allow us to sin? Because if He didn't, we would be nothing more than robots.

What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

He must punish all sin...God cannot compromise His integrity to forgive us…

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

[me:]Why? Surely God decided that a sinless person would be required to act as a bridge? Why didn't God just make us closer to begin with? Or why didn't he just come on over himself? Couldn't he? Why did he determine that to disobey his commands would create distance?

[you:]God sent His Son over on His behalf, remember? Fellowship with God is a privilege, and to the extent that we abuse it, that is the extent to which He will remove Himself from it.

You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:
http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Why why why why why why? First, read some of the things I've said and connect the dots.

Because because because because because because your dots don’t connect. When I ask about a connection between two dots, you cite another totally new dot from scripture. When I ask about how to connect that dot, you assert another one with a rhetorical question. When I ask about that dot, you get frustrated and tell me to go study theology. Except within the same comment before you’ve had a chance to answer, I don’t believe I’m asking you the same question again and again. I’m asking you to justify the new information you’re giving me. If it’s frustrating for you, imagine how hard it is for me to accept it.

[me:]And why did they become corrupt? That must have been one of God's rules, that when you sin the first time, you corrupt your DNA (or whatever) for all generations to follow. He created that consequence as much as he created the physical rules of the universe. Why?

[you:]They lost their innocence when they disobeyed God and ate of the fruit. Their nature fundamentally changed as a consequence. Also, death came into the world. The human experience went from paradise to paradise lost, and humans had to fend for themselves. The corruption was a confluence of all of these different factors.

You missed the question. What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

*quality of course!

For Dot and Play

Tags for this video have been changed from 'math, class, doodle, vi hart, dots, parabola, cone, curve' to 'math, class, doodle, vi hart, dots, parabola, cone, curve, angry birds' - edited by messenger

Thanks for the info dude of dots.