(This is part two as mentioned in my previous comment)

I’ve read and re-read your arguments over the weekend and for a portion of today. I’ve done a lot of research into what you’ve said and I found something particularly interesting which lead me to a significant question. “Where is all of this guy’s information coming from?”

So I did a little experiment. I did a Google search for all of the quotes that you’ve replied with and can you guess what I found? All of your arguments can be taken nearly verbatim or just reworded from creationist websites. Can you honestly expect anyone to believe that you’ve done your own research or read any real books on the subject of thermodynamics or biological evolution? How can you even take yourself seriously if you haven’t spent the time putting in the work to understand what the source material says for yourself?

The problem with your theory is, I have done the research, and I do know what the source material says. I understand the theory of evolution better than most atheists I have met. I use the quotations because they are hostile witnesses to my position which gives the argument even more force. It doesn't matter where I've gotten them from; that is irrelevent. The evidence I am presenting is what is relevent.

If someone has objections about the bible, would you take them seriously if you discovered that they hadn’t actually read it? No, of course not, so how can you expect to be taken seriously if you haven’t read the source material yourself? It’s just an attempt to try to discredit something that you haven’t actually studied yourself which I find to be a bit on the disingenuous side of things.

Most atheists I've spoken to who criticize the bible haven't actually read it. I've already told you my background so you don't have an argument. I have studied these things.

I know that you’re expecting this because every creationist website prepares creationists for this criticism but you’re idea of how thermodynamics works is entirely misinformed and you won’t know by how much until you do yourself a favor and listen to a course in thermodynamics or read a book on it. If you have iTunes, go to iTunes U and search for thermodynamics, spend 12 hours learning and then you’ll see that classical thermodynamics has nothing to say about biological systems. I suspect that you probably read a lot of articles from the Institute for Creation Research website.

You haven't offered any criticism of my position and you haven't demonstrated any actual knowledge of this subject, except that which is patently false. The laws of thermodynamics apply to everything, including biological systems. Evolutionists attempt to weasel out of that by declaring that they are 'open systems' and thus immune to entropy because of the energy from the sun, but as I showed this does nothing to show where information comes from, so you cannot explain it away.

I've read a lot of science textbooks, and a lot of scientific literature. When I was agnostic, I read volumes and volumes of it, and I stay abreast of the latest discoveries. Your accusations all ring hollow, especially considering you have failed to show you understand the subject on your own.

If that is the case and you do frequent ICR then here is something to think about: (Taken directly from the conclusion to their article “Does Entropy Contradict Evolution”)

“If science is to be based on fact and evidence, rather than metaphysical speculations, then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all. In fact, at least until someone can demonstrate some kind of naturalistic comprehensive biochemical predestinating code and a pre-existing array of energy storage-and-conversion mechanisms controlled by that code to generate increased organized complexity in nature, the entropy law seems to preclude evolution altogether. The marvelously complex universe is not left unexplained and enigmatically mysterious by this conclusion, however. It was created by the omnipotent and omniscient King of Creation! If evolutionists prefer not to believe this truth, they can make that choice, but all the real facts of science - especially the fundamental and universal law of entropy - support it.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that the majority of this article is correct and that the 2nd law does indeed contradict evolution. This final conclusion from the article does something very interesting. It jumps from saying that evolution cannot have happened because it violates the 2nd law to it was created by a god. How the heck are they coming up with that conclusion!? By what evidence can they make that leap let alone make the claim that the creator is both omnipotent AND omniscient? This is my problem with how you are arguing; you are doing the same thing. You are suggesting that the math doesn’t add up and that your answer is better but you aren’t providing the math to suggest why your answer is better; you’re just telling us that it’s the answer.

What you're doing is using a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument. You're absolutely right, that is a terrible argument. That isn't the type of argument I have made. When I brought up thermodynamics, I was responding to this comment:

"The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science."

I showed it was your position that was betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science. My argument was rational, well founded, and based on solid evidence, yet you have taken the low road of trying to assasinate my character, or outright say that I don't actually know what I am talking about. Again, it is you who have failed to adaquately demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Instead of addressing my argument, you have made the argument about me, as you have admitted to, and that is what is dishonest here.

Whether or not you resonate with that that snippet from their article or not, it illustrates how egger some people are to praise some scientific findings when those findings don’t contradict their beliefs and in the same breath, criticizes other scientific findings which do contradict their beliefs. If you encounter something that seems to contradict what you already believe to be true, it is wise to question whether what you believe to be true is actually true rather than searching for information that confirms what you believe.

It's called confirmation bias. A good example of this is looking at the question of the origin of life and believing it must have evolved despite having no actual evidence that it did.

The thing is that I know that you’re going to say that “science” has an agenda, and it does, but not like you think it does and you’ll never understand that agenda until you actually study it for yourself. You believe that it’s all about disproving god, or maintaining naturalism but it’s not.

Science is an institution run by individuals with individual beliefs and goals. Over 40 percent of biologists, astronomers and mathematicians believe in God. Belief in God is not incompatible with doing good science, nor is science in and of itself something bad. There is however a concerted effort, on the part of evolutionists, to push their version of origins on the rest of us, and they have often used legal means to do so. Evolution is pushed on the public like it is a proven fact and it is not.

You are arguing against a set of misunderstandings that you hold about what you believe the science is saying. Everything that you think you know about these matters is either a straw man, a red-haring or blatant misinformation. It would be very hard to impress on you how exactly that is true without you being educated on the source material. This is why we cannot have a conversation regarding these issues. You will just need to start reading the source material instead of going to interpretive websites; its far more interesting that way anyway.

What you're doing is jumping to a bunch of unfounded conclusions and drawing extremely weak inferences about what I have or haven't done, and then extrapolating that to a bunch of highly prejudiced judgements against me personally, and doing so in a haughty way, as if you are talking to a child. You have completely failed to include anything of substance in this reply. It is all just a sad attempt to write me off without actually addressing any of my arguments. Until you actually address the meat of my reply with a point by point refutation, this entire reply can be chopped up to one gigantic ad hom.

I am sorry to say that I find a degree of intellectual dishonesty in your method of arguing against these ideas by primarily pulling information and quotes from these sources without having done the work yourself. You are representing yourself as personally knowledgeable about the subject when you are doing nothing more than copy and pasting in quotes to support you. Besides this being a type of an argument from authority, it shows to me that you have no regard for the context in which the original quote was written. That is the definition of cherry picking and to me; it makes me think that you are more interested in maintaining your beliefs than being honestly interested in expanding your knowledge.

Or you have completely mischaracterized me, as I have demonstrated. Again, you want so badly for this to be about me. Even if I was doing everything you said I am doing, my arguments, if they were accurate, would still stand. You haven't moved one inch closer to disproving anything I've said. It doesn't matter where I've gotten the information, what matters is if it is correct or not. Regardless, I do understand the subject matter, and demonstrably better than you do thus far.

I don’t expect to change your mind. You seem deeply rooted in creationism and as you’ve said, you believe in the biblical god and that you feel that your life was transformed by him. That is a very powerful feeling, one that is very hard to overcome because it is something personal that you probably relate to. Perhaps you feel that your stability rests on the idea that a god exists and that your view of that god must be the correct one based on your personal experiences; I don’t know. I have nothing more to say other than to suggest that you read the source material so that way you can at least honestly say that you know what you’re talking about.

You aren't going to change anyones mind with this low grade excuse for an argument. This isn't about me, it's about the evidence. You say my evidence is invalid because I don't understand the subject matter, which is fallacious. The evidence is valid whether I understand it or not. However, I do understand it, and the problem here is you have no basis to criticize me because you're the one who hasn't demonstrated any understanding. You have even demonstrated the wrong understanding. However, the difference between you and I is that I will give you enough credit to assume you are a reasonably intelligent person who isn't just pretending to understand it. I am still waiting for you to prove it, however. Your attempt to make this argument about me has failed, because I have shown all of your claims about me to be false, and it is logically fallacious in the first place. If you want to continue, address my arguments directly and prove you actually know something. If my arguments are incorrect, feel free to show me why, at any time.


>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

(This is part two as mentioned in my previous comment)

I’ve read and re-read your arguments over the weekend and for a portion of today. I’ve done a lot of research into what you’ve said and I found something particularly interesting which lead me to a significant question. “Where is all of this guy’s information coming from?”

So I did a little experiment. I did a Google search for all of the quotes that you’ve replied with and can you guess what I found? All of your arguments can be taken nearly verbatim or just reworded from creationist websites. Can you honestly expect anyone to believe that you’ve done your own research or read any real books on the subject of thermodynamics or biological evolution? How can you even take yourself seriously if you haven’t spent the time putting in the work to understand what the source material says for yourself?

If someone has objections about the bible, would you take them seriously if you discovered that they hadn’t actually read it? No, of course not, so how can you expect to be taken seriously if you haven’t read the source material yourself? It’s just an attempt to try to discredit something that you haven’t actually studied yourself which I find to be a bit on the disingenuous side of things.

I know that you’re expecting this because every creationist website prepares creationists for this criticism but you’re idea of how thermodynamics works is entirely misinformed and you won’t know by how much until you do yourself a favor and listen to a course in thermodynamics or read a book on it. If you have iTunes, go to iTunes U and search for thermodynamics, spend 12 hours learning and then you’ll see that classical thermodynamics has nothing to say about biological systems. I suspect that you probably read a lot of articles from the Institute for Creation Research website.

If that is the case and you do frequent ICR then here is something to think about: (Taken directly from the conclusion to their article “Does Entropy Contradict Evolution”)

“If science is to be based on fact and evidence, rather than metaphysical speculations, then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all. In fact, at least until someone can demonstrate some kind of naturalistic comprehensive biochemical predestinating code and a pre-existing array of energy storage-and-conversion mechanisms controlled by that code to generate increased organized complexity in nature, the entropy law seems to preclude evolution altogether. The marvelously complex universe is not left unexplained and enigmatically mysterious by this conclusion, however. It was created by the omnipotent and omniscient King of Creation! If evolutionists prefer not to believe this truth, they can make that choice, but all the real facts of science - especially the fundamental and universal law of entropy - support it.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that the majority of this article is correct and that the 2nd law does indeed contradict evolution. This final conclusion from the article does something very interesting. It jumps from saying that evolution cannot have happened because it violates the 2nd law to it was created by a god. How the heck are they coming up with that conclusion!? By what evidence can they make that leap let alone make the claim that the creator is both omnipotent AND omniscient? This is my problem with how you are arguing; you are doing the same thing. You are suggesting that the math doesn’t add up and that your answer is better but you aren’t providing the math to suggest why your answer is better; you’re just telling us that it’s the answer.

Whether or not you resonate with that that snippet from their article or not, it illustrates how egger some people are to praise some scientific findings when those findings don’t contradict their beliefs and in the same breath, criticizes other scientific findings which do contradict their beliefs. If you encounter something that seems to contradict what you already believe to be true, it is wise to question whether what you believe to be true is actually true rather than searching for information that confirms what you believe.

The thing is that I know that you’re going to say that “science” has an agenda, and it does, but not like you think it does and you’ll never understand that agenda until you actually study it for yourself. You believe that it’s all about disproving god, or maintaining naturalism but it’s not.

You are arguing against a set of misunderstandings that you hold about what you believe the science is saying. Everything that you think you know about these matters is either a straw man, a red-haring or blatant misinformation. It would be very hard to impress on you how exactly that is true without you being educated on the source material. This is why we cannot have a conversation regarding these issues. You will just need to start reading the source material instead of going to interpretive websites; its far more interesting that way anyway.

I am sorry to say that I find a degree of intellectual dishonesty in your method of arguing against these ideas by primarily pulling information and quotes from these sources without having done the work yourself. You are representing yourself as personally knowledgeable about the subject when you are doing nothing more than copy and pasting in quotes to support you. Besides this being a type of an argument from authority, it shows to me that you have no regard for the context in which the original quote was written. That is the definition of cherry picking and to me; it makes me think that you are more interested in maintaining your beliefs than being honestly interested in expanding your knowledge.

I don’t expect to change your mind. You seem deeply rooted in creationism and as you’ve said, you believe in the biblical god and that you feel that your life was transformed by him. That is a very powerful feeling, one that is very hard to overcome because it is something personal that you probably relate to. Perhaps you feel that your stability rests on the idea that a god exists and that your view of that god must be the correct one based on your personal experiences; I don’t know. I have nothing more to say other than to suggest that you read the source material so that way you can at least honestly say that you know what you’re talking about.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I didn't want to argue about this in the comment stream, so I have moved it over here. I have left it public if anyone wants to peek, but I didn't want to hijack the very funny Evolution vid with an off-topic.

Well, we're going to have to disagree about this, Gallow. As a woman, I watched the Evolution vid all the way to the end. I saw 50 pretty and maybe 15 (I didn't count) intelligent women answering a politically loaded question that should never have been asked. See vid "should math be taught" -- Miss Vermont got the answer right.

I couldn't watch the shower one. I tried. I got about 1/3 of the way in.

It may have been really funny according to your "precious white male view of the world", but let me assure you, it wasn't funny to me. It was tedious and stupid and a perfect example of a woman being reduced to her body parts.

I could wrong about that, of course, since I gave us so quickly. Did she ever speak? Did she have a line? Was she accorded a point of view, even if it was steeped in the idiocy that is American public thought (I am referencing the stupid evolution answers, if that isn't clear)?

Also... objectification "substantiated" by comedy? That is just plain old objectification, sweetpea, with extra syllables. And.... you think you know which is worse? Don't you think you might ask a woman who is the target of the objectification, rather than checking in with yourself? After all, you are not the potentially offended one, are you? Shouldn't you be asking a bunch of women if THEY are offended?

I'm not defending beauty pageants, I hope you have realized. Rottenseed called me to that vid for the sole purpose of baiting me about the women's movement (a phrase that feels outdated after all these decades.) I was doing what I always do when rotten attempts to get my goat -- I answer the substance of the comment, pretend he isn't a dickhead trying to make me mad, and take the opportunity to rephrase whatever it is he is saying in a gender-neutral or woman-positive way. (Hi rotten. I didn't plan on mentioning you, I just ended up here. Hope you don't instaban me for calling you a dickhead -- snarf.)

I get that you have a different point of view. I also get that there is nothing I can say that will shift your perspective, so why bother "debating"? Having said that, I LOVE TO TALK ABOUT THIS SHIT. If you want to continue, I'm up for it.

I know that I am one lonely voice here in a sea of white men who have their own struggles with cultural expectations (I mean that sincerely, not snarkily.) That's okay. I have gotten very very VERY good at skipping over shinyblurry's lectures -- I assume that I am skipped over also. I can live with it.

In reply to this comment by Gallowflak:m

I can't not say that - according to my precious white male view of the world - whatever objectification there is in the CollegeHumour video you mentioned is substantiated by the comedy. It's not about the objectification of women. It's using a very common experience as a foundation from which to express wit and humour and crack a good joke or two.

Miss USA, by comparison, is pretty much exclusively about the objectification of women. That's all there is. There's no gag, no punchline, no purpose other than determining whose features are the most shapely and symmetrical and who looks nicest in a dress.

I know which one I think is worse.

if you think you know the will of the omnipotent, assuming IT exists, you're an arrogant idiot.

i'm little more qualified than you in this area..in this case im an ornithologist and you're some guy who saw daffy duck..this is a huge issue in the church right now..over half the church is roiled in complete apostacy..


Well... yeah. It's cool that you've figured out true Christianity but you have to understand you're not the only one who thinks so (and you can't all be right). Do you think you know the Bible better than, say, an Eastern Orthodox priest? You don't. Oh God how you don't. I've seen nothing in your posts to demonstrate more than a passing, only-my-denomination-which-isn't-really-a-denomination-it's-just-the-truth understanding of the Bible or Christianity in general - whereas Dr. Priest has been studying his whole life, and not just the Bible but delicate moral arguments reflected upon for centuries by a unified body. And he's praying for God to bless all Orthodox Christians. He's specifically excluding you from his prayers because you're a nutcase apostate - just like you're allowing into definition only the Christians you want based on the criteria you got from your nutcase, exclusive, non-Christian (according to 80% of the world's other Christians) teachers/pastors/whatever.

Think you know your Bible better than a devout Jehovah's Witness? Again, you don't. Dude has been arguing with other Christians 4 hours a day his entire life. He's 100% confident that he's gonna live on Paradise Earth talking to pandas, eating watermelon, and not having to hear anything from you ever again. He believes something radically, radically different than you and he's using the same book (well, mostly the same anyways) to support his wacky-by-any-objective-measure belief. I don't think JWs have a natural reading of the Bible - but I don't think "mainstream American Christians" have one either, and to the extent they do it 100% isn't reflected in their behavior or politics. Jesus's politics were so far to the left of Democrats and Republicans, it doesn't even compute.

Guys in this video? They have just as much claim to Christianity as you. You think his fruits are rotten? Obviously he doesn't think so. He thinks he's saving souls from homosexuality. That's, like, super awesome mangosteen tasty-time fruit. Does he show "love, one to another"? He thinks so. He thinks he's showing ++extra love because he's willing to do the uncomfortable and be the only one to reach out to these kids and save them from everlasting sorrow. I think he has a really good shot at you, in fact: why don't you want to help these kids? If you believe homosexuality is an abomination (which you'd better), isn't it worth some discomfort now if it has any chance of turning them on the right path? Is it because you've been corrupted by modern liberal values? He's so sad that, like, 60% of modern Christians have left the true path and opened themselves to worldly influences/the devil.

Me? I think a true follower of Christ would welcome anyone to call themselves Christian if they believed in Christ and showed love one to another - and certainly wouldn't attempt to exclude other Christians based on their affiliations, ritual foibles, or doctrinal quibbles. From first Corinthians:

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?


Unfortunately, though, it doesn't work to build a normal religion on top of Christ's teachings, because his teachings prohibit all the ways a normal religion works: divisions, shame, sanctimony, self-righteousness, greed, hate-for-those-different. How can you really get a crowd going if you're just telling them to be nice, accepting, and peaceful without stoking their egos, inflating your authority as a preacher, claiming an exclusive connection with God and truth, suggesting doubt is of the devil, and simultaneously making the congregation feel unworthy because of their secret sins? So modern Christianity (in all its wacky rainbow) just have to make do and shoehorn Jesus into "religion" (the same psychological tricks that have been used throughout history to subjugate people).

But I don't know why I'm talking to you (and I suppose mostly I'm not). I don't have any expectation that you're discussing in good faith or that you're at all permeable to reason. I've seen your beliefs on science before, and they're clear, clear signs that you're not interested at all in considering anything that doesn't already fit with your beliefs.

In fact, just to be sure I don't have to hear your moronic rebuttal or something, I'll give you an easy excuse to not talk to me because I'm oh-so-mean-and-bad: I think you're a fantastic moron.

My example is false? Are you saying that I lied about my previous jobs?

You are now adding qualifiers to the hypothetical peasant analogy by claiming he is a servant. A servant to whom? You cannot assert that he is a servant of the king, because we have not established that the peasant cares one whit about the king. You say that the servant has to work, he has to produce results. Why? I clearly made the case that the peasant works in the fields not because he believes he will upset the king, but so that he can feed his family. In my job, I had to work and produce results, or I would have been fired. In both mine and the peasant's cases, we would find ourselves starving if we did not work. (Furthermore, you are wrong to assume, yet again, that the CEO of the organization I worked for would not care that I left. I did, and it turned out to be quite a problem for them, because I was the last competent programmer in my department.) You say that the peasant doesn't have the luxury of not working in the fields. Why not?

Now you claim the existence of god can be proven, when just a little ways back asserted that it is not possible. Which is it?

Pride of being uninformed? Uninformed about what? My generation? You swear ... really? I doubt that you have any clue as to my age or to which generation I belong. Quite honestly, I suspect I am older than you, but I certainly won't assert that without knowing your age. You assume (again!) facts about my life to fit your understanding of the world. You assume that I have not searched for god, that I have done no "impartial research". I submit to you that you are writing about things of which you have no knowledge. To put it more bluntly, you're talking out of your ass.


A few days ago, you proposed the following:

These are the only answers to the question [of] does God exist
Yes (Theist)
No (Atheist)
Don't know (Agnostic)

Your refusal to accept that other people can and do see things differently is blinding you to the fact that there are other answers. In my case, my short answer to the question is, "Don't care, it's not relevant." My long answer is quite long, indeed, but starts by pointing out the question itself is usually meaningless in the way most people ask it.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure I understand what you were getting at with the peasant and king analogy, but it's gotten quite muddled now that we've tried to dig into it. If you like, let's abandon that and deal directly with what (I think) you were trying to convey. I claim that it is not only possible, but preferable, to lead a moral and ethical life without ever considering the existence of a god or gods, and without recourse to an outside authority upon which to validate my ethics and morals.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Your example is false, jonny. The peasant is a servant, he has to work. He has to produce results. You don't. If you left the company, the CEO isn't going to care. You could go live out in the woods, the peasant doesn't have that luxury. A ceo or president does not own you. The King owns the peasant. The peasant is his property.
lol to being proud of being uninformed, by the way..your generation I swear..
The existence of God can be proven, that's my entire point. You can know Jesus Christ personally, today. When I was agnostic, I didn't believe that Jesus was real, so yes I have some empathy for you. However, neither did I seriously investigate it nor did I really understand what the facts were.
I had all the information I had heard from other people, or things I had read, that atheists and agnostics in general just assume..I had all the various talking points and examples of inconsistancies that atheists and agnostics use in their arguments, most of which are easily disproven even with some cursory research. It was obvious to me that the bible was made up. Yet, with all that I didn't know a damn thing. It was really my ignorance of what was in the bible, and my inherent prejudice against it, that kept me from uncovering the facts.
I'll submit to you that if you actually did do impartial research, that the facts about who Jesus is will hold up. I challenge you to read "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615
See if what you think you know actually matches up to reality.

@jonny

Your example is false, jonny. The peasant is a servant, he has to work. He has to produce results. You don't. If you left the company, the CEO isn't going to care. You could go live out in the woods, the peasant doesn't have that luxury. A ceo or president does not own you. The King owns the peasant. The peasant is his property.

lol to being proud of being uninformed, by the way..your generation I swear..

The existence of God can be proven, that's my entire point. You can know Jesus Christ personally, today. When I was agnostic, I didn't believe that Jesus was real, so yes I have some empathy for you. However, neither did I seriously investigate it nor did I really understand what the facts were.

I had all the information I had heard from other people, or things I had read, that atheists and agnostics in general just assume..I had all the various talking points and examples of inconsistancies that atheists and agnostics use in their arguments, most of which are easily disproven even with some cursory research. It was obvious to me that the bible was made up. Yet, with all that I didn't know a damn thing. It was really my ignorance of what was in the bible, and my inherent prejudice against it, that kept me from uncovering the facts.

I'll submit to you that if you actually did do impartial research, that the facts about who Jesus is will hold up. I challenge you to read "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615

See if what you think you know actually matches up to reality.

For RedSky:-"If this was purely a GOP deal, then to revert on it this far into a Democratic presidency seems entirely arbitrary."

Your statement infers that there is some fundamental difference in either party (a wholly critical and objective look at their workings reveals a common bond and lineage merging at the inception of The U.S.) All I have seen from studying the past 100 years of world affairs and living in almost half of those is one war after another as empires are shaped, with the arms to affect these being produced by the same families or now, corporations. This is a form of genocide if you will or perhaps eugenics would be better terminology to use to describe it.

for YOGI:-I'd venture to guess that if you were to suddenly know those who were working behind the scenes to affect sudden and sweeping population control measures or who have been slowly eliminating the mental capacities and health of billions of people through chemical and pharmaceutical manipulation, you just might need to purchase some explosives to carry out the task of killing, quite a few Wealthy Deranged People. (WDP's)

We are all being duped.
Try to wrap your heads around the idea that what you think you know, is all wrong.

Here's the good news-Everything is unfolding as it is and the universe has a long time to go before it collapses in on itself or falls into some black hole or whatever it's supposed to do. Smoke a bowl.

"Ding dong, Bin Laudanums' dead, ding dong, the fascist bitch is deeeeeeead!
Bring a piton for his head, ding dong, the Muslim witch is deeeeeeeeead!"

It happened on Obama's watch, "OOOOOOOOOhhh! Now those who will have to vote for the guy who killed Osamas' numbers will grow! NEWSFLASH!!!! SOME of them will be so-called republicans, other so-called democrats. ALLLLLL OF THEM WILL BE BEING SOLD A BILL OF GOODS to ensure a relatively tidy corporate takeover of the whole damn globe.

Keep watching your televisions- sorry, telescreens.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^BoneRemake:
This infuriated me !!!!!! FUCKIN ASS', man its pathetic of these people. Its funny how Stereotypically the people who you think would not do something are the only ones who did ( that is urban youth who wear their pants around their knees).

So you downvoted me because you think this whole situation is very upsetting. Well Fuck You sir...I'm in support of abducting more and more children. Studies have shown abductees are more driven (to escaping) and proactive (about escaping) and are more thoughtful and respectful (of the people training guns on them).
I'm only looking to make life better for the children, you bastard.

You think you know why I downvoted your comment ? you assume why I downvoted it.
you are being sarcastic, and at the same time a douche bag, this is nothing more then a reflection in the mirror as to how dumbass I can be on these walls. Someday you may be privy to why it was downvoted.


Look I get it...I'm funny and you're not it's just the way of things.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^BoneRemake:
This infuriated me !!!!!! FUCKIN ASS', man its pathetic of these people. Its funny how Stereotypically the people who you think would not do something are the only ones who did ( that is urban youth who wear their pants around their knees).

So you downvoted me because you think this whole situation is very upsetting. Well Fuck You sir...I'm in support of abducting more and more children. Studies have shown abductees are more driven (to escaping) and proactive (about escaping) and are more thoughtful and respectful (of the people training guns on them).
I'm only looking to make life better for the children, you bastard.


You think you know why I downvoted your comment ? you assume why I downvoted it.

you are being sarcastic, and at the same time a douche bag, this is nothing more then a reflection in the mirror as to how dumbass I can be on these walls. Someday you may be privy to why it was downvoted.

Great monologue.

Assuming you are truly an insider, and not just some confused kid trying to emulate an archetypal corporate villain, then why have you spent so much time on this site, rambling inanely about politics? Why are you so adamant about pushing RC cola on Coke and Pepsi fans if it's all the same, corruptible shit?

I've been trying for years to prove to blankfist that all of that free market talk was just a ruse to morally justify economic elitism. Could you confirm to him that this is the case? If you do, I promise to continue to always use the kind of toothpaste you want me to use (Why Aquafresh?). Anyway, I think you might have helped my side of the argument here today. Thank you for that.

BTW, who did you vote for?

>> ^imstellar28:

Interesting, tell me please who you voted for this week? If you think the democratic party hasn't been bought and sold by corporations a hundred times over, you are quite delusional indeed...
Let me tell you as an insider, we couldn't be more amused that the internet is filled with the inane babblings of people who think corporations care whether a "democrat" or "republican" is in power. We could care less who you vote for, as long as you believe it makes a difference. Humans are bought and sold as easy as livestock. We don't need to buy your party, when we can buy you. We control how you spend your time, what you see and hear, what you think you know about the world, even what you want and hope for in life. We control what you eat when you're hungry, what you drink when your thirsty, what you brush your teeth with before you go to bed at night. Your life is nothing but a series of false choices. Coke or Pepsi. You really think it makes a difference to us? You have been helplessly brainwashed. You are nothing but one of millions; silent, droning workers who line our pockets and support our lifestyle.
Thanks for voting!
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
You tell me. How does corporate cock taste?
>> ^imstellar28:
If corporations are evil for "buying" elections, what are the people who "sold" their votes?

Interesting, tell me please who you voted for this week? If you think the democratic party hasn't been bought and sold by corporations a hundred times over, you are quite delusional indeed...

Let me tell you as an insider, we couldn't be more amused that the internet is filled with the inane babblings of people who think corporations care whether a "democrat" or "republican" is in power. We could care less who you vote for, as long as you believe it makes a difference. Humans are bought and sold as easy as livestock. We don't need to buy your party, when we can buy you. We control how you spend your time, what you see and hear, what you think you know about the world, even what you want and hope for in life. We control what you eat when you're hungry, what you drink when your thirsty, what you brush your teeth with before you go to bed at night. Your life is nothing but a series of false choices. Coke or Pepsi. You really think it makes a difference to us? You have been helplessly brainwashed. You are nothing but one of millions; silent, droning workers who line our pockets and support our lifestyle.

Thanks for voting!
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You tell me. How does corporate cock taste?
>> ^imstellar28:
If corporations are evil for "buying" elections, what are the people who "sold" their votes?

Oh crap. Did Tony Danza the "English" teacher use a double negative and say "You know you think you know so much, then you find out you don't know NOTHING." Sigh. Apparently he knows EVERYTHING.

To be fair btw, finished the game, it is bowel looseningly frightening - even if you think you know what's coming - it still gets you!

These are from "Lets Play Amnesia : Blind" videos - so the players are playing the first time, and recording the game and their commentary as well - TheGamerRoc in particular - thats not the worst he suffered!

Also, in ref to the dupe - you are NOT allowed to call them pussies unless you played the game. At night. With the lights off. With headphones. Or else you're the pussy

SCREAM AWAY!

If you're gonna use youtube comments to attach some value to a video, there is not a single thing worth watching on youtube then, excluding a few get to sleep hypnosis videos.

The more popular a video is there, the more anonymous, unmoderated user comments it's going to attract no matter the content. Most of those posts are just there to try and get a reaction.

Now...

There is no way to determine who started the argument. If you're sympathizing with one person or the other you're doing so out of some self perceived abstract.

The white guy must be racist (because this involves a black person)
The black guy is the hero (because he got hurt and I feel bad for him; because too many people are assuming the white guy is the hero and I don't like that; etc, etc...)
The black man started it (because he looks like a bully)
My examples may all be wrong, but none the less if you think you know who started talking trash first then you're making an assumption. There is no way to tell via this video who started the argument. Once an argument of this nature starts things get said to push the other person's buttons, and take jabs at them.

By some people's logic here, the girl holding the camera is a complete racist and must hate white people seeing as she threw out the most direct racial slur in the entire video.

The black guy swung first, and don't give me that it was a slap.. both people are enraged. I think the swing was meant as a hit, but it doesn't matter. EBM saw a swing coming at him and acted out of self defense. He did not start the fight, so his actions where self-defense. He pummeled the guy a bit much, yes, but he was enraged, threatened and did manage to stop before knocking the guy out cold or worse.

I do think there was some racism involved on a subconscious level. The black guy had a few cheering for him, so he probably felt a bit more confident and cocky. The white guy may have felt slightly alienated.

And lastly, this is just a fist fight people. It's not THAT big a deal. These things happen. People have tempers, people have a right to defend themselves. No one was killed, knocked out, no bones broken (possibly a broken nose, but I think he would have been in more pain). Yes it sucks this happened, but it's not exactly horrid. I've seen people become buddies after something like this.