^Um... were we watching the same video?

Downvote for slandering Grimm without evidence.

It's not so much the difference of opinion as it is the craziness of opinion. He goes commie-godwin right off the bat, and then segues into infanticide? Really? You agree with that?

I don't imagine Alan Keyes would allow himself to be put through a psychological evaluation, so I can't get you official clinical documentation, but you are free to watch this video over and over to try to spot the glaring, bald-faced circumstantial evidence.

Atheist Uprising! we need a book burning ourselves... of the bible. and when the media asks why? we can list the offensive things in the bible that most of these fundies are ignorant to and that the media never acknowledges.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” -Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion

that would make a great email signature. thanks for writing it down for me :-)

In reply to this comment by cybrbeast:
That is arguably the best start of a chapter ever.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

That is arguably the best start of a chapter ever.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

>> ^UsesProzac:
Oh, and thepinky, I downvoted that comment earlier in thread because I think that was a ploy for attention. I think I established earlier that I feel that's your whole intention.
And yeah, I deleted the comment you left on my profile. Are you going to get all up in arms about that, too?


You think that all I want is attention and this is the reason that I comment? I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. I usually comment on videos because I feel strongly about them or I feel that I can add something to the conversation. Sometimes I say things out of anger or frustration (this is what is seen as trolling by some) or I respond waspishly to disrespect, but I do not do these things for attention. I think that you have an attitude about me that causes you to project intentions and attitudes into my words that I never had.

I really wish that you would stop downvoting my comments. At first I didn't care, but now it is somewhat disheartening to go back to nearly every one of my comments to see that it has been downvoted by the same person with no explanation offered. It is especially discouraging to see comments from the last couple of days downvoted because since Deedub posted this thread I have been making an honest effort to be better. Could you at least occassionally tell me the motives behind all of the downvotes? Then perhaps I could do something to change the things that so offend you.

For example, why these?

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Very nice, Deedub. But no votes, of course.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Upvote for the feminism.

At the risk of being melodramatic: When she was talking about the sexism she encounters, I was reminded of some of the comments made to me on the sift when I still had a photo of myself for my avatar. People accused me of "knowing that I was cute" and "using it to get ahead" and "trying to make people like me," etc. Even other women said that if I wanted to be a real feminist I should change my avatar. These comments surprised me because I was using that picture for the simple reason that while I was quickly creating a profile a friend suggested, "Why don't you use such-and-such picture? That would be perfect." (i.e. it was the right size, a closeup, and the facial expression was a good representation of me.) I wasn't trying to use my looks to get anything from anyone, and it is pretty insulting when people assume that a woman is intentionally using her appearance for personal gain. (Well, I suppose we all want to look good for selfish reasons, but you know what I mean, right?)

Maybe only my weird mind sees the parallel. Of course, Lara Logan as a journalist has it much worse than me on VideoSift.


In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Great video. We complain about more than just technology, don't we? Most of the complaining that I've seen in recent years has had something to do with government, war, and economy. When I hear complaining, it seems like Americans grieve about the state of our nation not because we have it all that badly, but because we are concerned about the dying soldiers, the poverty-stricken families, preserving the Earth for the good of our children, etc. That's why it is okay to be dissatisfied with the world. Hopefully it will result in positive change.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Everyone likes the idea of representatives who carry out the will of the people until

1. they are one of the minority
2. they are one of the majority, but the representative ignores the majority.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Thanks for noticing. I actually have a good sense of humor, but most people are too pissed off while reading my comments to notice.

They seem harmless enough to me.

By the way, I appreciate the upvote, but I thought it was ironic that the only comment of mine that you have upvoted is also one of the few comments I'm actually ashamed of posting.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:

Well, at least your morals don't conflict. (Excuse me while I vomit.) But, seriously, if you don't think infanticide is wrong, then being pro-choice would be a logical choice for you, albeit immoral and repugnant. It's these people who don't see the difference between infanticide and abortion that I don't understand.>>

^Fronzer:
It's arguments like these that make me glad that I'm not only pro-choice, but also don't have any qualms regarding infantcide.
Oddly enough, I'm against the death penalty. Strange how that works, isn't it?


I DO understand the difference between infanticide and abortion very well. I don't know why I wrote that.

This is all about homophobia, pure and simple. I've yet to hear a compelling argument about how gay marriage will affect hetero marriages.

The foundation of all this is, of course, religion.

In Romans I (I had to look it up) it says:

Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Religious people cling to this and other biblical quotes as their main argument against homosexuality but the bible is filled to the rim with amoral crap: infanticide, genocide, pre-pubescent rape, slavery, stoning people for divorce, on and on and on.

The modern view: "The gays" want to infiltrate our society, indoctrinate our children, take over our country, and make all men want to fuck other men in the ass.

People fear that which they do not understand. They're scared to death that a gay man will sidle up next to them in the grocery store queue and stick their penis in their ass. That's what it is, that's all it is.

But don't you see how mind-numbingly silly that is? And please don't give me that "protect the sanctity of marriage" bullshit. The divorce rate among the religious is greater than atheists.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
(scroll to the middle of the page to the section entitled "Variation in divorce rates by religion")

We did away with slavery because we evolved our thinking.

Why is this different?

Your court.

>> ^thepinky:
I was wondering what everyone thinks about infant death? Are they God's little infanticides or...?


having experienced what you are talking about here, I feel that you are clinging to an extremist blanket rule on abortion that is unworkable and will never be enforced. Give it up. Let other women make their own choices, your God will judge them, not you.

>> ^littledragon_79:
I was wondering what everyone thinks about miscarriages? Are they God's little abortions or...?
I was wondering what everyone thinks about infant death? Are they God's little infanticides or...?

>> ^Fronzer:
It's arguments like these that make me glad that I'm not only pro-choice, but also don't have any qualms regarding infantcide.
Oddly enough, I'm against the death penalty. Strange how that works, isn't it?


Well, at least your morals don't conflict. (Excuse me while I vomit.) But, seriously, if you don't think infanticide is wrong, then being pro-choice would be a logical choice for you, albeit immoral and repugnant. It's these people who don't see the difference between infanticide and abortion that I don't understand.

*downvoted - I disagree with the headline as I don't equate being pro-choice with infanticide just because it's spoken from an ardent Republican.

Obama did support infanticide. It went beyond abortion to killing babies outside the womb when he continuously blocked the Born Alive Protection Act. He allowed late term babies born as results of failed abortions that could have been saved with medical care to be thrown into refuse bins while they were still alive and breathing. Then he dodged his record during the Saddleback Q/A and posted a retraction about it later after all his denials were plastered on TV. Considering that the RNC speeches were aimed to preach to the choir (same as DNC speeches), they know their target audience. This was a policy move from Obama that could most definitely destroy him in certain camps.

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/

Punishing you for not telling them what they want to know?

Punishment is the stick, its the push factor. Its the whip, its the wet rag, its the electric chair, its the psychological mind games and its the cocktail of chemicals. Torture is just a specific "genre" of punishment. Is infanticide not a murder as much as homicide?

Playing word games around laws is detrimental. The words serve the spirit, not the other way around.

"tians" and "ists" are all "ons" t'me......
and farhad2000, state-sanctioned infanticide(late-term), suicide, or euthanasia, are but enlightened and logical steps towards eugenics and concentration camps my educated, man of the world pal......(dunno why, those are the 1st 3 that popped into my head after seeing the abortion cartoon)
Definitely do something about repeated offenders, murderers, etc. I know, incarcerate AND rehabilitate-then beat the piss out of them, and chain them to a post if they ever do it again. But How often do they have to get beat until they are accidentally killed??? Let the surviving relatives decide.
Foreigners. Lemme put it this way-I live in the United States, and I wish there were more folks here foreign to the daily fare.
People are people so why should it be, so many twitch n' twirl, with head-in-assssss disease....

"Eugenics isn't inherently wrong in the same sense that dictatorships aren't inherently bad governments (i.e., an omniscient, omnibenevolent dictator would be the best possible government)."

I understand the word "Eugenics" to mean the activity of genetic modification by way of an organized and centrally planned program which involves--by its very nature--coercion, forced sterilization, infanticide, and the like. There's good reason to think that such programs are inherently wrong even if they produce good consequences (like the elimination of certain diseases). You might be invoking a different definition of the word, but the one I've used is the most common one, and the one most in line with the common connotations.

Also, I disagree with you about the best form of government. Why wouldn't a system in which rational and perfectly moral individuals freely associate be far superior to one in which there was any sort of dictator?

Infanticide isn't eugenics. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with eugenics.