The saddest thing about this is that even this pile of poo poo her sorry excuse for a brain managed to come up with and convince itself is brilliant is nothing new, it's been done before (unfortunately). I have a better idea, we round up girls like you, introduce them to prostitution and explain to them they would be better serving mankind by whoring themselves out than by trying to be creative, I can't claim pimping is a concept I came up with but at least we know it works.

Also, why do people "mercy-clap"? Wouldn't it be better to shatter her tiny world by letting her know she's retarded than to encourage her to spread her idiocy and bask in it?

>> ^spaceman:

Why I don't care:
1) You once believed in a god.
2) You are a guy.


@spaceman | The reason why the rest of us watch and listen to "just some guy; who believed in God":

The only reason you can type your sentence is from/due-to "other" men. Religion in all forms is from "other" men (unless you claim to hear voices or a physical divinity; but, please, not as an affront to you, make sure you're not psychotic or schizophrenic before telling us your interesting story as that is the case almost always; same with drug use; same with some other illnesses: narcolepsy, sleep walking, night terrors/sleep paralysis, and many other sleep related issues and all nervous system illnesses). Only a few things below talk more about what you said.
--------------------------
--------------------------
A little more to add to the conversation. Hopefully, this gets it all out as it will be fairly long, but the video is hard to reply to in a short manner. I hope this covers a large extent of what I wish to say about this very well done video witness/testimony.


One set of values you can research and witness to it's validity on your own, as he has done. Science also allows for this methodology, using the well known precept of "The Scientific Method".

A quick example is that many people of faith, even Evid3nc3, talks of feeling "x" with their "hearts" and knowing "x" with their "soul". In science there is nothing more than a simple, yet complicated, physical processes. It's all a creation and manifestation in your brain; if you think you "feel" something with your heart you're causing minor self-hysteria to the extent of creating a minor hallucination.

The "soul" is called the(primarily in psychology, neuroscience, and neurology; there are many other terms that try to mean "you"; typically, in grossly inaccurate ways, such as: ghosts, "psychic" remote viewing, many religions use of the magical-energy-divine soul, etc...) psyche which is typically (starting from the outer-functions and moving into core-functions) sensory systems, language center, feelings, memory, and then the key-piece the neo-cortex. So it must be understood that your brain does a lot of things still baffling (mostly the mechanics or mechanisms of function and chemistry), but the overall picture is fairly clear.

But, the brain is not a floating energy source, nor is it an absolute definition at any given point or time. Depending on how and where you look at the brain the very concept of you is different. It more akin to superposition of an electron or a kaleidoscope; the definition of you is not concrete until measured and even then you are already not what was measured.

Even from what little we do know, belief plays a central role in how our neo-cortex makes decisions and operates (even with memory and other functions, which is why we do make many mistakes as it's due to how our brain physically commits to anything it must or will do; it's perhaps the single best reason to show why, "To err is human; to forgive, divine."; you don't understand the human condition if you cannot forgive...). Could this translate into a bigger picture; our connected neurons telling us to accept faith and belief, sometimes, because that is what it does at the small scale?

*Offtopic Look up articles, books, and videos (look at TED for Marvin Minsky, Jeff Hawkins, Craig Venter, Jonathan Haidt and others --some of which are here on the sift-- related topics on there like the Mind, AI, facial-pattern-contextual-semantics-divergent-cat vs. dog software based Recognition, and then other media pertaining to 'Artificial Intelligence') or if you want to know strictly about how the brain works and makes it's decisions, look for a type of setup called a "hierarchical structure"; also known as a pyramid or pyramid scheme. One cell makes a decision based off of the accumulations of "guesses" the other millions of cells connected to it made; these cells are fundamentally the foundation for that setup, but the neurons are more flexible than that as each can be a parent and also part of the "foundation" structure, making the brain a fantastic structure. With time this becomes accurate (this occurs in less than a few milliseconds), although our vision, for an example, is horrifically distorted and wrong, if you could look at one "frame" based on a few cells. Only a small fraction of the frame would be correct; literally it would be as though your senses got one pixel correct in a 1080p image. Yet, repeat this millions of times with different data sets each round (and this is done as said above, fast) you get an accurate picture; or at the least 20/20-to about one-arc minute (the resolution for the human eye, on average).

One set you can't test, we call that belief or faith. "What is the reasoning for taking the leap of faith?", this is what you have to defend at this point. If faith is your only defense, I will (like many others will) assume you haven't looked into your own faith enough yet or you even refuse to look out of fear of being wrong. If you do not understand the topic you must be willing to ask for help as he did or you'll be a slave to your willful decision of ignorance, to the extent that you feel compelled to defend them, but you never convince anyone except yourself--and for yourself it is only because of the rote-righteous indignation.

If it's true it should withstand all scrutiny. Unless truth isn't your ultimate goal. Then, for us and many others there is no reason to follow your faith. Usually, this type of merit and defense are directly related to age due to learning this all when you're a child and devoid of an intense ability to decipher, attribute values, connect, and draw in a belief (if with some facts and proof you could call it a hypothesis).

It's all from men... I'm wagering you're dismissing this flippantly due to religion; if not what exactly is your point, as I truly would like to know why and where this claim of non-relativistic knowledge comes from, without a woman or man?

Also, if it has to do with his belief in being mistaken for believing in God that's a moot point as we have all erred in life. I know of no person that has reliably been able to "claim divinity", other than Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, etc... But, we also know now that mental illness and other factors can account for any manic or psychotic leanings. We also know magicians (or magister, proper) have been around A LONG TIME.

Plus, as Arthur C. Clarke put it, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.". Which then one must ask another question, "Can divinity itself ever be established as being magic only?". This is then rounded up by a statement from Larry Niven (sometimes called Niven's Law(s)), "Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology.". These collide and distinctly form a conclusion about divinity and any of it's powers (descriptive magic or divinity and it's "how to use it" manual are indefensibly getting closer in each step to being more akin to physics; plus the Christian God hates magic, which begs the question, "Why do you need a God, if we can exact the same effects?"):

Divinity can only hope to use advanced knowledge and technology in a collusion to bring about one standpoint alone: "divinity" if described by God in any kind of ruleset (some of it is in the bible, already) stands on a rigorously tested and time shown: shaky ground.

Men would be gods whether God existed or not.

(P.S.: only the beginning and some bits here and there are for you, @spaceman. The rest is for our vestibule.)

Again I must add that this is a great find @dystopianfuturetoday.
You're doing yourself a great disservice not watching it (or all of it as the case may be).

I'm fairly certain that would only make us feel much more frustrated about this whole deal.

It's not like the Quantumushfaces and Winston Picklefarmers of the world are gonna:
[even bother to] Read those documents..
Be astonished by all the lies and distortions..
Round up a bunch of fellow ex-"fox news loyalists"
Start a - "Take Back Our News" Political Action Committee

It would be business as usual for that ENORMOUS demographic.
They would lie and pretend and excuse it all away.
Wait for it to blow over and sweep the rest under the rug.

~~~
Can you even think of an independent, moderate group of people [with the wealth & time & power] that could exert enough political or economic pressure to back up Assange's threat?

CNN would jabber some about it for a segment then cut to the latest viral video.

Rachel Maddow and Ratigan and Cenk would ramble about it.

Tho they aren't organizing peaceful protests that stop traffic in an entire city..
or co-ordinating stadium sized TEDx talks about natural economics and politics and our we're developing as a species..

Or whatever it is we rational non-extremist human apes need to do to absolve ourselves of these assbackwards realities.

~~~
.. Maybe we could start a Videosift PAC.. ?


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Assange needs to pick up the pace.

Fireworks!!! Classic.
Chalk another one up to Monsanto methinks.

http://videosift.com/video/WL-US-bullies-Europe-on-behalf-of-Monsanto

http://videosift.com/video/A-round-up-on-Monsanto

http://videosift.com/video/The-World-According-to-Monsanto-Documentary-Trailer

http://videosift.com/video/The-Geneteic-Conspiracy-Are-GMO-Foods-Safe

http://videosift.com/video/Monsanto-s-On-going-Quest-For-Food-Domination

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Sure, if they're modified to have a higher yield or are more disease resistant.
But, if they are modified so that crops have to be sprayed with Round-up, or so that their seeds will not produce (have to buy more seed every season) -- then they are inherently bad.


But the problem is that the GMO's will eventually cross-breed with non-GMO variants, yielding mutant crops that do reproduce. Except these mutants will have other unintended traits and most likely devastating effects after several generations (of crops, not the people eating it). That is why he said "the problem will be around forever". It's relatively easy to recall a drug that the FDA deems unsafe, but nearly impossible to quarantine mixed seed.

Farmers Corporations might be saving money now with GMOs having higher yields and less bug problems, but America will certainly pay the price 10-fold for the cost of cancer treatment.

Kudos to France and other EU countries where the government regulatory boards are more effective.

(I'm not against the idea of GMO's, but I think they should go through the same testing and case studies that any drug has to go through, and that's about a 13 year process)

>> ^cybrbeast:

Monsanto may be evil, but I am not in the GMOs are principally wrong camp. I'm convinced genetically modified crops will be very important for our future nutrition needs and food security.


Sure, if they're modified to have a higher yield or are more disease resistant.

But, if they are modified so that crops have to be sprayed with Round-up, or so that their seeds will not produce (have to buy more seed every season) -- then they are inherently bad.

No. Sorry. The Monsanto company will not allow itself to be overthrown.

Besides, there's even more profit to be made from war than from Round Up.>> ^TheGenk:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Also, the US helped out Europe when they went through their fascist phase. I welcome Europe to return the favor. Join together and denounce our broken, violent fucked up country.

Well yes, but wouldn't it be nice to work out without a world war this time?

A few years ago, when I was working in Northern Ontario, planting trees, we came to work on a clear-cut that had been left for several years without being re-planted. (In Canada, it is required by law that companies plant two saplings for every tree harvested.)

This clear-cut had been sprayed with a herbicide (which I am confident was Round-Up) that killed all broadleaf plants in the area to make it easier for re-planting, and give the conifers and advantage amongst the broad-leaf "weeds." Small stands of full grown oak and maple trees among the harvested stumps stood without a single green leaf. It was beautiful--like the middle of winter in June. But what I remember is the burning itch that started shortly we began work that day.

"The reason why GM crops are here is based on a deception that occured in the FDA." (25:00)

"From a corporate standpoint it was a brilliantly orchestarted takeover [of the FDA]" (30:00)

"Donald Rumsfeld was the CEO of Serle which was a Monsanto subsidiary. The former US trade ambassador Mikey Canter ended up on Mansanto's Board. Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas used to work for Monsanto. (44:00)

"Biotechnology is so important that we can't let a few little questions about cow safety or human safety get in the way." (43:20)

"Round-Up ready [genetically modified] soybeans account for ninety percent of the soybeans grown in the U.S.. In fact seventy percent of the food in American stores contains bio-engineered elements." (58:00)

This film is so incredibly quotable in it's detail about how Monsanto is a danger to the health of the food of the world, but I'll stop here.

The only irony is that rounding up all the gays and putting them in prison isn't likely to stop them "being gay together."

I read 'Satanism' and I was all happy...upon closer inspection, I was disappointed.>> ^blankfist:
Statism. It just works.

It's just too easy for the government to say something is classified in order to hide it from the public. This is supposed to be a "representational" government not a secret one.

And yet common sense informs us that in order to maintain freedom and order, things like military operational readiness, technology and war plans should be classified. I'm sure the Germans wished for American "transparency" about D-Day and the Japanese (Happy December 7th!) about our atom bomb programs.

Also treason only pertains to citizens of that country. Assange is Australian, right?

For damaging American national security, Assange should be treated as a foreign enemy and assassinated, just like a bin laden.

Maybe we should round up 79 year old Daniel Ellsberg and hang him in Time Square for high treason?

Ellsberg was/is a traitor, but at least he was prepared to endure his fate, whatever it may have been.

@quantumushroom, I'm sure the truth behind the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was classified. So were the Pentagon Papers which exposed the lies of four presidential Administrations. Maybe we should round up 79 year old Daniel Ellsberg and hang him in Time Square for high treason?

It's just too easy for the government to say something is classified in order to hide it from the public. This is supposed to be a "representational" government not a secret one.

He' absolutely right about eleven being a gay number. I know this because the street address of the nearest gay bath house is 430 and if you multiply the 4 and 3 you get 12 and subtract the zero you get eleven because as I proved in a previous comment you cannot subtract zero in gay math so you must round up to the nearest prime number.

>> ^deathcow:

I know you're gonna say "staged" but I have it on top authority from the Internet it is real.


You know how it is: Everything is fake until proven real. Better start now on rounding up witnesses to give their sworn depositions.