Please expand, because while I can see that he's picking and choosing some easy targets for criticism (over the top SJW stuff) that may not be representative of the at-large "Progressive" agenda, nothing really jumped out at me as a "straw man" argument.

I'm a somewhat conservative-leaning person (at least on issues that I think should be in the realm of government), but I feel like I have a legitimate beef with some of what the party that is "supposed" to cater to conservatives actually does in government; what the GOP seems to present as its "platform".

This guy is a liberal-leaning person who feels like he has a legitimate beef with some of what his party thinks their platform should be. And I tend to agree with a lot of what he's saying.

And I would hope that even if I didn't agree with anything that he was saying, I'd be all for protecting his right to say his piece. Some people/groups test our patience for that, like the Westboro Baptist Church -- ostensibly a crazy right-wing organization that just wants to get their message (of hate and bigotry) out there. But in reality they are just a bunch of con men who stir up trouble in order to provoke violent or other responses that they can start litigation over. The point is, there are good ways and bad ways to deal with idiots like that.

Threats to free speech from the other side of spectrum are much more subtle, and therefore perhaps more insidious and dangerous. For example, at about 3:00 in the video where he lists "racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, and islamophobia" as "meaningless buzzwords". For many people, those words are NOT meaningless, but real, concrete problems that they actually have to face in their lives. Problems many orders of magnitude more significant and weighty than any of the minutia that can make or ruin our average day. Unfortunately, those words do tend to carry a lot less weight when they are bandied about willy-nilly every time we disagree with someone for any reason.

I guess, we all really do have more things in common with each other than things that separate us from each other. The frequent and extreme factionalizing and partisanship today seems very counter productive. And there's plenty of blame for that to go around.

I've always said the word genius is bandied around way too much, and this video is a fine example. CRT screens/tvs follow the same idea - individual lights illuminate in sequence quickly enough to form a static picture, each pixel changes very slightly 100 times per second (refresh rate) to give the illusion of the original picture in motion. The CRT beam scans ("rasters") from top left to bottom right (for example) in exactly the same way that the device in the video spins (it rasters in a circle) and however many times it spins per second is the refresh rate.

It's a cool project and his PCB work is nice, and he's done a good job of translating a picture into a timed set of lights. The videographer uses the term genius because he was not previously aware of the long history of rasters. This would be a useful tool for teaching children about the process - CRTs might not be popular anymore, but CCDs are fundamental to (astro)physics, and the principles behind both cover a huge range of potential teaching topics.

@SDGundamX

Thanks!

@shveddy

Bit confused since you say there's a point of no return at the end, but yes your argument is not really about that.

People not meeting their nutritional needs right now is not due to an under supply but due to general poverty. If sufficient employment and income existed in impoverished countries the world supply of food would be able to cope. As far as a lack of balance, see my earlier point about bringing people out of poverty, closing global income gaps and all sharing the available resources.

I don't think you could characterise any of the global conflicts in the past 100 years as being primarily due to resource scarcity. Perhaps Japan's aggression in SE Asia around WWII because of its lack of energy resources but that's an isolated case in the post-Depression era brought about by misguided isolationist economic policies. If you really want to prevent resource wars, your best bet is to be a staunch advocate of free trade.

Large countries have gone to war because of personalities, territorial ambitions and a general desire for power, not out of necessity because of scarcity.

As far as a point of population balance, that's entirely subjective. Like I said before, his bandying around of exponential is completely unfounded. Population growth is rising at a much reduced rate, proportionate growth relative to current levels is much smaller than in the 1950s during the baby boomer period.

When you say 20Bn as an example, I don't think you appreciate how much we're going to plateau. Have a read of:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/06/daily-chart-10

9.6Bn by 2050
10.9Bn by 2100

There is a good chance we will never hit anywhere close to 20Bn short of life enhancing technology which at this point doesn't exist. If we do, then I could equally argue we will invent technology that will reduce our individual resource needs dramatically.

Do I wish population growth was lower and there were more for each of us? Sure. Louis CK has a great bit on it. Agreed on women's rights and education, but as with everything it's correlated to societal poverty. You may as well kill two birds with one stone by just focussing on that. Every policy action has an opportunity cost, given what I've said, I would rather focus on something more pressing.

Do you just not bother going to the bathroom in these things, or do you carry a key on you? If the latter, do we assume that the rapist isn't going to say "take them off or <x>?" I don't want to shit on the idea or anything, but it strikes me that this may provide some people with a false sense of protection almost, that says "go on.. take a risk; you've always got your rape pants on if this goes badly." Have that extra 5 drinks and get wasted, walk down that dark street alone, accept the free drink off the creepy guy you're getting a weird vibe off. Not everyone is that stupid to see it that way, but some people are.

There have been links posted that provide some form of evidence that resisting tends to reduce the harm done to the victim, but the form of resistance really needs to be accounted for. If 7 times out of 10 screaming and fighting scares a rapist off and 3 times out of 10 it doesn't, then the statistics can show that screaming and fighting works well for the victim. But i was led to believe that rape is about power, and if our 3 out of 10 rapists are presented with the inability to feel empowered in the way they want, did we just convert the statistic to 2 out of 10 victims getting murdered or mutilated instead? In other words, if screaming/fighting doesn't work then you're dealing with someone who isn't easily put off, so aren't at least some of them going to find another outlet for their desire for power over the person? And is frustrating them (effectively making them feel powerless) really a good idea given the situation?

Finally, i hate the term "rape culture." It's an utterly vacant bullshit term bandied about by misandrists and makes people irrationally scared of something that doesn't exist. The culture of rape? Some sick, mentally deranged bastard commits a heinous act and we label it as though it has been educated upon them through society; almost as though it isn't their fault, it's modern day society that encourages rape? What an absolute load of toss - everyone knows it's wrong that has a grasp of the concepts of right and wrong. Rapists are sick in the head, not coerced into it by peer pressure. "Rape culture" indeed. Some extremist lunatics shaming a victim does not a culture make.

It's not attempting to explain free will. It's just wresting with the inconsistent way free will is bandied about as an excuse for Yahweh's own inconsistencies in terms of whom he chooses to help and whom not.

Always thought Timberlake a mediocre dingleberry, the boy-band scarlet-letter emblazoned forever on his forehead...His acting is pretty sub-par BUT.... he fits right in with the SNL alumni and snagged the heart of the lovely and talented Jessica Biel so i guess he's shaping-up pretty well....

Then, start to thinkin' of what a gay-ass name Jessica Timberlake sounds like and i wake up to how much of the original douchebag he came off as all boy-bandy 'n shit and Justin just justin....He better treat Jessica rRabbit right!!

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
*promote the national treasure! I too shudder at "energy" and other rendered-meaningless words being bandied about by woolly-thinking goons.

Many thanks kind lady

*promote the national treasure! I too shudder at "energy" and other rendered-meaningless words being bandied about by woolly-thinking goons.

>> ^chingalera:

Fast n furious , energy relegated to the now. That's the mettle, that's the dedication shining...
You have obsessively proven yourself far into the above and beyond, kiss a kitty to celebrate your new bling.
A major accomplishment in about 6792 less comments it took choggie to sink into infamy....Congratulations, have a latte'..☕


This peppermint soy no whip mocha is for YOU! [sip] =oD

Someone will have to fill me in on this Choggie character some day ... I've noticed the name bandied about here and there =oI

Damn, I forgot to tick the "email me when comments" box and missed out on half the discussion I started

One strawman needs to be definitely burnt right now, and it's the whole "offended" thing: nowhere did I argue that a comedian (or anyone) has no right to be offensive, and @Ryjkyj is right to say that everything is offensive to someone. I agree with Steve Hughes about offensiveness. Another strawman is the whole "waaah you're attacking my free speech!" clause that is often bandied about by those who have the worst things to say (e.g. WBC or the MRA-holes on the web). Nobody's saying you shouldn't be allowed to say horrible and/or offensive things, but you should be condemned (morally and socially, not legally) for doing so, especially when what you say borders on threatening (just as an aside, @shuac, for all your 1st amendment wonderfulness in the US I'm pretty sure there are exceptions, e.g. threatening someone or, you know, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre ).
I agree that heckling is a huge no-no, and I agree that Tosh had the right (nay, obligation) to shut her up, but the way he did it seems to say something pretty terrible about his mindset. Had it been Louis CK on stage he probably would've retorted with a hilarious rape joke, proving the woman wrong without resorting to base intimidation.

_{(As for the term "rape culture", it is a controversial concept in feminism that I only partly agree with; it would be more accurate to call it "violence against women culture", but you can see why they chose the short and shocking title.)}

>> ^hpqp:
Sometimes I wish ignorant cop-haters like you had to live in an actual fascist police state (NK for example) in order to learn the true meaning of the concepts you so blithely bandy about. Some people in the US abuse their positions of power, no doubt about that, and it's good to want to see that change. But to lump all law-enforcement (and government, for that matter) into a ball of "fascism" only shows how ignorant, hateful and/or paranoid-delusional you are.


This is a typical attitude of those who don't value freedom.

The United States is horrifyingly oppressive. Everything from the individual's movements to his communications down to his actual body chemistry is strictly controlled. Good people find that intolerable.

There's no excuse. Being slightly less repressive than North fucking Korea is not something to be proud of.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^arekin:
Can you support this with, well, anything?

The US is a fascist police state. Fascism is bad. The enforcers of fascist authorities are bad, and the people who call them good are bad.

I think the apologists don't understand why decent people hate cops. It's not that we've seen a few videos on youtube and don't understand that these are the 'bad apples'. Those incidents are trivial; when cops behave especially badly it's only a symptom of their breed's inherent corruption.


Sometimes I wish ignorant cop-haters like you had to live in an actual fascist police state (NK for example) in order to learn the true meaning of the concepts you so blithely bandy about. Some people in the US abuse their positions of power, no doubt about that, and it's good to want to see that change. But to lump all law-enforcement (and government, for that matter) into a ball of "fascism" only shows how ignorant, hateful and/or paranoid-delusional you are.

Fair enough - it sounds like you're certain in every practical sense, but you don't believe you have "absolute knowledge". That was really the main distinction I was trying to make. Certainly I agree that you can't reason in any meaningful way without writing off certain kinds of extreme possibilities.

I think absolute knowledge is possible even from our subjective standpoint. For instance, it is absolutely true that "something" exists. Any argument against this is actually proof that it is true.

In any case, I am making a claim to absolute knowledge, because divine revelation could only ever be absolute knowledge. A person receiving such revelation would have a justified true belief in God. That's my claim. It's not something I could prove..only God could prove it, but neither am I unjustified in believing it.

I understand the contrast here, and I think I understand now what you're trying to get at better - I just don't think this contrast is fundamental to the question I'm interested in (which is different, I think, than the one you're interested in). To me the intermediary steps are fungible - it's the start states that are interesting to me, and to me they all require arbitrary stuff that I don't like, but that seem necessary.

Well, originally you were responding to this question:

"I'll ask you the same question I ask messenger..how would you tell the difference between a random chance Universe and one that God designed? What test could you conduct to find out which one you were in? When you can come up with a test to determine that, then you can tell me that there is no evidence. Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is evidence."

If we can boil all of the possibilities down to design and chance, how could you tell which Universe you were in? What test could you conduct that would tell you the difference? Atheists often demand some kind of empirical proof of God, yet they are never forthcoming on the details of what that proof would consist of. That is really the impetus behind this question..

I think this difference in focus may come down to our varying perceptions of those intermediary steps. For me, the general big bang model, ideas of how stars and planets coalesced, natural abiogenesis, and evolution are reasonably credible as they stand and I expect those theories to develop and become more credible. You see those things very differently. I think that naturally leads to a different focus.

The reason I don't see them as credible is because of a lack of evidence. For instance, there is absolutely no evidence of abiogenesis, at all. In fact, louis pasteur proved that it is most likely impossible. Life has never once been observed coming from non-life. Yet, it is assumed to be true because "there must be a naturalistic origin to life". It's a just-so story and it isn't at all credible. I've heard the odds of it happening are far greater than the number of atoms in the Universe.

People tell me that Creation sounds like a fairy tale, but then they tell me their own story that begins with "once upon a time a frog became a prince", and this somehow sounds plausible when you throw in billions of years.

time is in fact the hero of the plot. the impossible becomes possible..time itself performs the miracles.

George Wald
Harvard
Nobel laureate

I agree with this as well - to an extent. Having a unique God makes for a simple explanation in general (although it gets a bit complicated in practice for how we ended up precisely "here"). For the general problem of "how did this all get here", your recipe is very simple if it starts with God. On the flip side, God is a very big thing to assume. I think a case can be made for belief in a general God on something like this basis. Though I don't personally find it a convincing case at this time, that could change.

I think you'll have to admit that God is a much better theory than "I don't know". Yet, people bandy about "I don't know" as if this is the superior position. You have to wonder why to even think that the Universe was designed is subject to so much ridicule and derision, when it is actually a perfectly reasonable theory that is supported by evidence. As far as assuming God goes, you don't need to explain God to postulate Him as a possibility. What matters is whether the idea has explanatory power. The question always is, is God a better explanation for the evidence?

It isn't always an evidential argument, either. There many logical arguments to assume there is a God:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

Perhaps another question: for you personally, would you describe your situation as more like "God provided me with special evidence, and I reason that He must exist because of this evidence" or more like "God produced a change in me directly, such that I now believe (unmediated by your own reason)"? (Or, obviously, something in between or different altogether). I think this would clarify your situation for me.

I received evidence in a number of different ways. One, is that God fundamentally changed me. In the blink of an eye, where I was broken, I was now healed. Where there was addiction, there was self-control. Where there was hate, there was now love and forgiveness. Where there was darkness, there was now light. It was instantaneous and it certainty had nothing to do with me. I would have stayed the way I was, left to my own devices. It was a supernatural transformation of my inner being.

Another thing is that God has demonstrated to me, beyond all reasonable doubt, that He is in absolute control of everything. To the extent that I no longer include the word coincidence in my vocabulary. In short, He has used my internal and external experiences to give me evidence of His existence, and this is ongoing. I always experience the presence of God because His Spirit lives within me.

There are other ways that I cannot quite put into words. The peace of God transcends all understanding. His love surpasses all expectation and every height; it is a deep and wondrous mystery. He is my Father, and I am his (adopted) son. My relationship with God is a personal one that has changed my entire life in every conceivable way, beyond anything I could ever imagine or hope for.

>> ^jmzero

>> ^dannym3141:

How dare you accuse me of being a militant anti-theist after the discussions i've had with you? Do you have no conscience about lying or something? You had to swallow your pride and apologise to me once for being a jerk (when i came to you as an inquirer) and yet you bandy around terms like "militant anti-theists?"
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. God is watching; shame on you.
>> ^shinyblurry:
How do you drive a group of militant anti-theists further away from God? You either want to know the truth or you're running away from it. That's the only dichotomy in this equation.
I post for a number of reasons, depending on the topic. I generally only post in videos which deal with God, Christianity, or social issues involving biblical morality, because those are the subjects that interest me. Not only am I qualified to comment on these topics, but as these kind of videos generally present an anti-christian worldview, it is only natural for me to respond to the subject matter and present my own viewpoint.
Videos like this don't make me angry. Like I've said before a few times, I used to think this way. I used to be as liberal and skeptical about the supernatural as most of you are. It is no mystery to me why you think the way you do. I am not baffled by your reasoning, nor does it threaten mine. What I felt was sorrow for Richard because he may never have come to know God before he died.
>> ^Quboid



I don't regard you as a militant anti-theist. However, the sift has many *proud* militant anti-theists and so I generalized. I didn't mean everyone.

How dare you accuse me of being a militant anti-theist after the discussions i've had with you? Do you have no conscience about lying or something? You had to swallow your pride and apologise to me once for being a jerk (when i came to you as an inquirer) and yet you bandy around terms like "militant anti-theists?"

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. God is watching; shame on you.
>> ^shinyblurry:

How do you drive a group of militant anti-theists further away from God? You either want to know the truth or you're running away from it. That's the only dichotomy in this equation.
I post for a number of reasons, depending on the topic. I generally only post in videos which deal with God, Christianity, or social issues involving biblical morality, because those are the subjects that interest me. Not only am I qualified to comment on these topics, but as these kind of videos generally present an anti-christian worldview, it is only natural for me to respond to the subject matter and present my own viewpoint.
Videos like this don't make me angry. Like I've said before a few times, I used to think this way. I used to be as liberal and skeptical about the supernatural as most of you are. It is no mystery to me why you think the way you do. I am not baffled by your reasoning, nor does it threaten mine. What I felt was sorrow for Richard because he may never have come to know God before he died.
>> ^Quboid