>> ^Morganth:

Just because you can't think of a good reason why God would allow evil and suffering to continue, therefore there can't be one? Why would that be? That's some very poor logic. >> ^A10anis:
Epicurus had it correct in 300BCE;
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Don't let these brainwashed self deluders, with their childish concepts, take us back to an age when every aspect of life was controlled by their cult. They are free to be slaves to their gods in private, but free, logical, 21st century, intelligent thinkers, should fight tooth and nail to keep it out of Politics and, especially, away from our kids and schools.


Wow, that just went way over your head, didn't it. "God-is-mysterious-but-he-is-god-so-he-must-have-a-good-reason" is your idea of good logic? Anyway, Epicurus isn't saying god doesn't have a reason. Only that it must be malevolent IF he is "able, but not willing".

Funny that's what the agnostics and atheists argue when it comes to belief in a god. Just because you can't think of a better reason, doesn't mean god did it.

The so called morality of the Christian god has been demonstrated time and time again to be in conflict to what we know of as a free and just democratic society where all people are equal...not just the "chosen" ones who believe.

The instant we decided that slavery was wrong, we became better than the Christian god
The instant we decided that stonings were not an appropriate method of punishment, we became better than the Christian god.


>> ^Morganth:

Just because you can't think of a good reason why God would allow evil and suffering to continue, therefore there can't be one? Why would that be? That's some very poor logic. >> ^A10anis:
Epicurus had it correct in 300BCE;
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Don't let these brainwashed self deluders, with their childish concepts, take us back to an age when every aspect of life was controlled by their cult. They are free to be slaves to their gods in private, but free, logical, 21st century, intelligent thinkers, should fight tooth and nail to keep it out of Politics and, especially, away from our kids and schools.

Just because you can't think of a good reason why God would allow evil and suffering to continue, therefore there can't be one? Why would that be? That's some very poor logic. >> ^A10anis:

Epicurus had it correct in 300BCE;
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Don't let these brainwashed self deluders, with their childish concepts, take us back to an age when every aspect of life was controlled by their cult. They are free to be slaves to their gods in private, but free, logical, 21st century, intelligent thinkers, should fight tooth and nail to keep it out of Politics and, especially, away from our kids and schools.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^VoodooV:
Look, I think the video itself is quite annoying because yes, I do feel it's a bit preachy.
but the message itself, is quite accurate.
And if it's so obvious, you won't mind stating why homosexuality is not normal.

I totally agree, the video IS "quite accurate," but I stand by my comment. Gays now -quite rightly - are protected by the law, have civil rights and will soon, hopefully, be allowed to marry. They worked hard for their rights, just as woman, and other persecuted minorities, did. My salient point, regarding the video, is that it preaches to the converted, will not change those bigots who will always hate, and that maybe it's time to enjoy their well earned rights and allow time to change the entrenched opinions of the minority. Sadly, going by the comments, ANY criticism of videos like this is tantamount to homophobia, which could NOT be further from the truth.

You are precisely who this video is addressing. YOU are the reason this video exists. YOU, who think that human rights are something "earned" by a minority, not inherent, bestowed upon the disenfranchised who should just feel grateful for the tolerance and generosity of the majority and kindly shut the fuck up about it. You just don't get it.
And THEN, after immortalizing your ignorance and arrogance in prose by releasing it into the ether, not to mention a worldview that likely extends no further than the windshield of your Prius, you refuse to clarify something that should be extremely easy to clarify for someone so enlightened. Yet, you dodge the question by dismissing the asker as incapable of understanding that which you have failed to explain as not worth your time, when, in fact, you are incapable of understanding the question in the first place, as already proven by your demonstrable inability to grasp the underlying issue/reality.
You aren't fooling anybody but yourself.

How you have managed to deduce from my comments that this video is aimed at me is, quite frankly, beyond ignorant. And if you don't think rights are fought for, you know nothing about history. Your notion of equality being a fundamental right is, though commendable, rather childish. In the real world, minorities fight hard to change attitudes and, as with homosexuality, are making good ground which is a credit to them. Now, try reading my comments again with a more objective view and you may, just, see them for support of gay rights and NOT a criticism of them. Sadly though, I doubt you have the ability to do so. I shall not respond again, as you have exhausted my patience.


Yeah, because that's what all our worlds rotate around isn't it? Your patience. Your replies are predictable and very formulaic. Trolls have followed the same blueprint since Compuserve was one of the "Big 3". Let's try something you can actually relate to...

Ya know what, probie? Your eulogising here has started to get tiresome. I mean, be happy that your ilk are allowed to post comments and all that, but do the rest of us have to have your opinions and ideals shoved down our throats just because you can? I mean, I'm happy for you and all... comment away! Seriously, it's something you are allowed to do, so I don't begrudge you that right at all. It's just that... do you have to be so goddamned flamboyant about it?

It's all about trajectory. You launch at an angle and force that compensates for drift and earth movement, etc. I bet they expected it to land anywhere within a few miles as it's a chute recovery system. Rockets don't fire on high-wind days because it throws trajectory off.

Yep, expert over here. This guy.>> ^Fletch:

>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Sagemind:
Actually, considering how high it went up, It's quite amazing how close to it's original launch site it landed.

I thought the same thing, if that would of hit someone...ouch.

Was it just luck or does it guide itself at all on the way down? It just seems SO improbable that it would come back down so damned close!
Do you actually think Carmack can design an engine nowadays that isn't on rails? Just because you can see all that landscape doesn't mean the rocket can actually go there. The only way back is through the same boring airspace it had already cleared.

>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Sagemind:
Actually, considering how high it went up, It's quite amazing how close to it's original launch site it landed.

I thought the same thing, if that would of hit someone...ouch.

Was it just luck or does it guide itself at all on the way down? It just seems SO improbable that it would come back down so damned close!
Do you actually think Carmack can design an engine nowadays that isn't on rails? Just because you can see all that landscape doesn't mean the rocket can actually go there. The only way back is through the same boring airspace it had already cleared.

>> ^MrMark4000:

When will that stupid ass crappy video editing stop! please make it stop. Just because you can do that garbage cutting doesn't mean you should! It doesn't make you appear smarter!


But it does cut out the pauses and allows for continuous delivery of an opinion. Seriously, if you're miffed about the editing to the point you haven't got time to hear out some rational point of view then maybe just because you can be annoying, doesn't mean you have to be

When will that stupid ass crappy video editing stop! please make it stop. Just because you can do that garbage cutting doesn't mean you should! It doesn't make you appear smarter!

You are so wrong. It affects everybody.

>> ^kymbos:

No, because it's the act of two freely consenting adults that affects no other parties is why they should.>> ^bobknight33:
Just because you can be gay does not mean you should do it.

>> ^Barseps:

Crikey..... Ana Kasparian has developed a British acent
^Upvoted^


Ana's nose is sexier.

Hey intangiblemeg,

I've got a question about correctly assigning something to the femme channel. Would you say it's for any sift that prominently features a woman for any reason, or should the content itself address a woman-related topic? IMO a channel about women would be more useful than a channel merely containing women, like every Rachel Maddow or Ana Kasparian video. Case in point: this video features a woman, but it's got zero to do with women as a topic.

Thanks!

No, because it's the act of two freely consenting adults that affects no other parties is why they should.>> ^bobknight33:

Just because you can be gay does not mean you should do it.

Just because you can be gay does not mean you should do it.

>> ^shole:

A Finn here too. \o/
There's a few tiny nitpicks in the video;
-There's no standardized testing at all.
Only test one could call standard would be the entry exams to universities, and other higher tier schools.
It's one exam (per field of study) you do and put a list of schools you want to get into, in order of preference.
Which brings me to an important omission;
-All universities and vocational schools and others are free.
It's kind of implied by 'public', but just to make it clear.
Pass the entry tests and you're good. (lower level graduation required)
This brings a lot of foreign students in too.
There's also a set amount of financial support in exchange for course credits, well enough for several degrees.
It's always mindblowing to think that families save up for tuition.


The matriculation examination at the end of gymnasium (i.e. the high school equivalent we have) is definitely a standardized test, since it's the same for every school and graded on a national level. Just because you can pick and choose the subjects you want to do doesn't change that fact.

She's british so this concept makes perfect sense to her but it doesn't to me as an American. Some guy recently posted some racist remarks about a footballer in England and got arrested for it. I don't agree with that.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should makes some sense. Giving the state power to punish people who said something doesn't, it's why Britain cannot consider itself more civilized than America. Sorry you are our bitch in Foreign policy, deal with it.