How can you say "pseudo-religion" The FSM is as real to me as your "holy spirit" thing.

Just because you don't feel the loving touch of his noodly appendages, doesn't give you the right to Diss my faith over yours.

(nor does it give me the right to vandalise your church either.)

No one should use their freedom of expression, freedom of choise, freedom of faith/belief to deny that same right to others. (these Fucktards clearly did and that's sad)

Although on the plus side. Everything happens for a reason, and just because you can't see your God and my FSM moves/wiggles in a mysterious way. So maybe it's just all part of the big pasta plan?

I'm going to wholly disagree with you here on the title of this video. BADLY loses the debate?
Which questions are insufficiently answered?

If anything, I'll agree he should have avoided any long-windedness in his explanations because of the strange time constraints. 6 minutes of rapid fire questions? The structure itself lends it to the ideologues like yourself who can simply throw out arguments without a shred of proof. "Jesus performed exorcisms!" in 3 seconds of speaking where as any argument against that takes substantially more time because of all the underlying claims.

How could Hitch have improved his arguments (again not to say he even lost the debate) take the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" for example. It's nothing more than saying "Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there"

To which I'd say, "It doesn't mean it IS there either." There are logical quips to this nonsense that theists purport, but reasoned, well thought out, researched, and correct responses usually don't come in fortune cookie form as theists would prefer.

The BIBLE!!! TOO LONG DID NOT READ!!! http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/28/survey-atheists-know-more-about-religion-than-believers/

My personal take: the problem with CGI and 3D anmiation (and it's only been exacerbated by the new trend in 3D moviemaking) is it gives the director too much control. Regarding camera placement, instead of employing traditional camera movement, now that in can be placed anywhere, it has been. We get these rollercoaster spins, pans, trucks and zooms that completely disorient the viewer. In "Tron Legacy", do I really need to see the light cycles in profile, hovering only 2 inches off the ground going 100mph to the right, only to vault over the bike and sweep around to the back of it to showcase another light cycle entering the fray? No. Just because you can place the camera inside someone's butt crack doesn't mean you should.

And with CGI, it gives the director too much leeway in exaggerating scale, movement and proportions. Perfect example: In Stephen Sommers remake of "The Mummy" Imhotep screams and his mouth artificially elongates. If you watch earlier in the film, it does so but only slightly, imparting a sense of the supernatural. But by the end of the film, his screams become so overly done, it comes across as comic and bufoonish, as if I was watching a Tex Avery cartoon. That's OK to do in Jim Carrey's "The Mask" because it calls for it. But not in "The Mummy", nor in "I Am Legend". The vampires in "I Am Legend" aren't threatening, they're evil monster meets Stretch Armstrong.

I like Aronofsky's approach to CGI: Use it as sparingly as you can, and only as a last resort.

The funny thing about fluoride is that it's purported benefits are topical. So even if you (falsely) believe it reduces cavities, you'd be an even bigger moron to deliver it in a format that is ingested, like tap water. They put warning labels on toothpaste telling you not to do this, but not when it's in the water supply. Makes perfect sense, right? Who knows what bodily ailments this stuff is contributing to in our society.

Just because you can find an opponent of something who is trying to scam you afterwards doesn't mean they aren't right about the shit being bad for you. Plenty of good scientists and dentists who aren't homeopaths have been voicing their opposition to fluoridated water for years.

My advise to him is "Just because you can make a sports comment video, doesn't mean you should"

>> ^robdot:

wow, are you kidding me with this fucking bullshit? cant even say eskimo now? watch this.
eskimo ! nigger! wop ! beaner! midget ! yea, i said it! midget !! just words. idiot almost kills himself but heaven forbid we call him an eskimo.


Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's interesting that the first ever interaction I ever had with you Gwiz was around your concept of "self censorship". Let me reiterate what I said all those many months ago: Just because you can say anything you want, doesn't mean you should. That includes threats to maim or kill little old ladies with Alzheimers.
>> ^gwiz665:

Well, @dag, the difference is the people who do the things are the psychopaths, not those of us who are disgusted by her actions.
Saying - among friends or associates, such as here - that she's a wicked person, a fucking bitch and whatever other explitive you want to add is in no way psychopathic and to suggest it is undermining the meaning of the word.
SHE is likely a psychopath, if she does not feel remorse or have "bad feelings" about doing this to an innocent animal.
She deserves punishment, not death. If someone thinks she deserves death for this, then their moral compass is screwed up, but they are not psychopaths.
So once again, bullshit.
If you or anyone else wants to sit in a soundproof booth of self-censoring and not try to rock the boat, go ahead, but don't expect other people to join you there.

If you look at most freeways, they gradually slope across the surface for water drainage. So no they are not perfectly flat, but the goal for people preparing subgrades is to make the surface as even as possible while maintaining the desired grade. If the surface is really even, that means there will be the minimum amount of overage on materials when it comes to asphalt. If they prepare it properly, the machine can be set at 2-3-4 inches thick and lay all day at that depth, and when they move over to the next lane, they can lay the same thickness and maintain the grade without having to adjust. That's the goal, it meets the specs of the job and doesn't cost them in overages on material....and if they are majorly over...someone screwed up.

Now....I'm pointing out flaws in this roadway because if they were to use his design and it failed miserably there would be less chance of them ever doing it again. So what's the fault in putting it in applications where it would see more extreme conditions in a lower traffic zone to get a proof of concept? Or hell even put it on a bike path or sidewalk, if it holds up superbly for a few years......move onto a military base to see how well it holds up to extreme abuse of their heavy machinery.

Just slapping it down on a highway because that would be cool is a sure fire way to kill this prospect dead in it's tracks for a long time to come. Prove it lasts, prove it provides savings, and prove it's as safe as or better than current materials under all possible road conditions. Highways may be the goal, but it isn't the first step on an unproven concept.

Personally I think if they did this on bike paths, they'd have more luck pushing it forward..because bike paths are all about the green initiative...so if they can also kick some energy savings back to the city while testing their product. No one loses there if the materials work, and if they don't.....at least it's just a bike path that needs re-surfaced.



>> ^Payback:

Most of you keep talking about how the road needs to be perfectly flat. Well, they don't. Otherwise the concrete pads of the interstates would need to be perfectly flat. These are 3x3 squares. Every video game character you play is made up of squares and triangles. A spiked ridge between the LED/P-V "pucks" would take care of any water caused splipping.
Just because you can find fault with the guy's "ultimate" roadway, a ton of the ideas could be implemented without full conversion.
How about using those LED/P-V pucks on highways to merely to show where the lanes are at night? They could "pave" the centre and shoulder areas to provide power for streetlights and not affect the traffic surface.

>> ^Payback:

Most of you keep talking about how the road needs to be perfectly flat. Well, they don't. Otherwise the concrete pads of the interstates would need to be perfectly flat. These are 3x3 squares. Every video game character you play is made up of squares and triangles. A spiked ridge between the LED/P-V "pucks" would take care of any water caused splipping.
Just because you can find fault with the guy's "ultimate" roadway, a ton of the ideas could be implemented without full conversion.
How about using those LED/P-V pucks on highways to merely to show where the lanes are at night? They could "pave" the centre and shoulder areas to provide power for streetlights and not affect the traffic surface.


You could also have dynamic road deployment and redeployment. Need to rewire your entire highways system for an evacuation? No problem, reconfigure all signage and postings to make all available roads outgoing only, now, short of the likely bottlenecks, you have doubled your outbound traffic ability. Really, the sky is the limit. Any level of smartness to the roads brings with in untold innovation. The physical problems seem very manageable and knowable, but the benefits are easily hidden and largely unrealized. The potential is mind blowing though. Solar powered streets and buildings just makes to much since not to try and make work. So much free energy in these already used places, we just need the means to effectively harvest it, and this seems like a great idea, in any final form it takes. It is worth mentioning that glass is non-crystalline. Meaning it can flex and bend over time. Look at any old house and the windows are thicker on the bottom then the top. So it can deal with gradual gradient changes, how well is a matter of engineering.

Most of you keep talking about how the road needs to be perfectly flat. Well, they don't. Otherwise the concrete pads of the interstates would need to be perfectly flat. These are 3x3 squares. Every video game character you play is made up of squares and triangles. A spiked ridge between the LED/P-V "pucks" would take care of any water caused splipping.

Just because you can find fault with the guy's "ultimate" roadway, a ton of the ideas could be implemented without full conversion.

How about using those LED/P-V pucks on highways to merely to show where the lanes are at night? They could "pave" the centre and shoulder areas to provide power for streetlights and not affect the traffic surface.

Good to hear from the armchair psychologists here. (Btw, she didn't get surgery. She just dresses as she feels now.)

I knew I was a girl when I was 8. I liked to rough-house with my brothers and act boy-ish, but never once thought I was one. Just because you can't imagine someone feeling differently, doesn't mean it's horrid awful and terrible.

Can you imagine, just for a moment, what this girl is going through? What if you grew up in a world that was convinced you were something else? And then abused you when you didn't conform?

Think you need to give children a little more credit. Sometimes they're smarter than the adults.

>> ^tedbater:

Because an 8 year old child has no idea who they are. While I may not agree with gender reassignment in the first place; I respect the right of an adult to make that decision. But in an 8 year old child? Disgusting.
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/8-Year-old-Boy-Has-Sex-Change#comment-1027583'>^bananafone</a>:<br />
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/video/8-Year-old-Boy-Has-Sex-Change#comment-1027582">^tedbater</a>:<br><br> This is the sickest thing I've ever heard.<br></em><br> <br> Why?<br> <br> <br> Oh @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/MilkmanDan" title="member since August 16th, 2009" class="profilelink">MilkmanDan</a>, don't they have three bathrooms in thailand instead of the two we have in the states? I think that's awesome.<br></em>

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not happening. Anyone who isn't worried about the dollar is living in a never-land; I envy them.

This guy saying that everyone lost their shit, as he talks about his dreams. It's all to easy to look down on others, until you find yourself in the same place.

But yea fuck that, no one else is using those damned pools let 'em skate. As my neighbor used to say, "They seem like nice enough boys."

"You just don't get it."
Well, then it's probably not important. If an argument is not worth making, it's not worth hearing.

In the above video he says a lot of stuff that has no bearing on reality, if he is indeed right, I want more evidence than just him or you saying "It's true".

@enoch Concerning dreams; There's a big difference between perception of reality and actual reality. Just because you can imagine (dream) in a non-linear way, doesn't mean your brain processes it in a non-linear way. We can watch movies with skipping times as well (like pulp fiction, for instance) but that doesn't change that the movie plays forward one picture at a time.

I'm sure Jung was a brilliant guy, Freud too, but it seems clear that they make the same God of the Gaps in their time as many other brilliant men did as well. There's a sift with Neil deGrasse Tyson somewhere, where he talks about god of the gaps and the many brilliant men who fall back on that, when they can't explain something.

He bases his argument on "You can have dreams or visions of the future, only ignorance denies this" well, I think that's false. Our brain can guess and sometimes hit somewhat close to what actually happens, but the brain retroactively molds our memory to fit better, by only remembering some parts and forgetting others. I've not seen evidence yet of anyone being able to predict the future beyond the obvious or better than guesswork. So, that is a faulty assumption. Like he says in the latter part, he does not believe for the sake of believing, but if there's sufficient reason to believe a thing, he will believe it. That's a good way to go, but there's not enough reason to believe the mind is separate from the body. There are, on the other hand, plenty of evidence that we're confined in our bodies.

>> ^rougy:

>> ^berticus:
jung had salient insights into human consciousness?
where?
next you'll be telling me freud was really great too.

If you don't get it, there's no use explaining.
It's...wasted breath.
He coined the term "synchronicity" which so many have tried to denigrate into "coincidence."
But it is much more than that, and only the aware will comprehend.
He recognized the archetypes that transcended cultures, around the world, through the centuries.
Anybody who calls bullshit on C.G. Jung hasn't done his homework.

That's a cop out, Longde. That feels a lot like, "just because you can't see angels doesn't mean they don't exist."

Just because you can? It's a privilege(right) to carry. It should be exercised regularly at the peril of it's loss. But obviously not in this context, the man initiated contact with the police not the other way around.

He should have parked a safe distance away and taped from there.