Thanks!

In reply to this comment by geo321:
*promote

>> ^VoodooV:

gee, shiny resorts to harassment? color me shocked!
I'm sorry, but ill say it again, people like shiny need to be kicked out of here. It has nothing to do with conservatism or religion, these people simply don't contribute to civil discourse. I know plenty of conservative/religious people who are capable of engaging in civil debate and discourse, Shiny or QM, and others aren't among these people
They drop their talking points and move on to the next sift. That's not debate, that's not discourse. And you certainly can't have rational discussions with someone who no matter what, thinks you need to be saved and doesn't view you as an equal human being and him and his god are always correct and you're always wrong. It's not conducive to rational discussion and quite frankly, it's simply not healthy, period.
And yes, it is trolling.
Remember that even though they seem to be an endangered species, there are actual rational right wingers out there. You may disagree with them, but they can actually debate civilly without regurgitating Fox News or Theistic propaganda.


This is such an old response and thread, but I thought I'd say it anyway as I really want it said in here.

I've met, actually, a great many people that are very set in their theistic mindset, but like you said they also don't think I'm going to burn in a pit of fire come the end of time; in fact quite a few of them would be morally outraged if such a thing occurred--as they literally know, like me, that the difference between believing in God and not, is merely a thought away (or you could say, one neuron connection/pathway away).

There are a few that believe in fire and brimstone type things, but they only--typically--reserve it for the greatest of crimes (like an Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot). Even fewer still that believe that there is a harsh judgment remaining for a lot of people, but they tend to believe that there is a way to "return" or to repent there--in the "lake of fire" and come back a new person.

BUT, the ones that think there IS a hell, absolute and horrifying in all it's glory, these are ALSO the very same people that cannot have a rational discussion with you. It's very strange. It's as though their ability to actively decide whether actions in play are moral or not are by definition an unanswerable question until they have been told by someone ELSE what that answer is: either the Bible, other religious members, or talk show hosts, and you get my picture. THESE are the dangerous people.

It reminds me of the story in the Old Testament, in Numbers 15:32-36 (for those that wish to read it). Now I know many *newer* religions, get around this stuff by saying they use the New Testament (it has it's fun stuff too, but for now, let's just do this one) due to Christ's Salvation and his, yada yada yada yada yada--I heard this for a long time myself as a Mormon and in some Catholic services I went to.

This guy collects what is essentially firewood on the Sabbath (this was back in the day when not having a fire active in your house/hut/tent/whatever at night could literally mean death--in case you've never been out camping/hiking, fires are VERY important and are a DAMNED LUXURY with our matches, steel wool, sleeping bags made to hold in heat, and other items that make a night in the wilderness go by--gently and one could say comfortably fun).

Instead of just collecting this firewood, making a meal and going to bed, this guy gets caught for working on the Sabbath and is taken to Moses and Aaron. So we all know what that little commandment this is, the one EVERYONE disobeys now (It goes by either of these two definitions and there are more versions--trust me: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. -OR- Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.). So God buzzes Moses on the iGodphone™ and tells Moses the bad news, or well the good news and the bad news. The bad news is that "unnamed villager" will be taken outside the encampment, with what sounds like most of the people and then stoned to death. The good news, is they get to stone someone (sorry, but back then and with the regularity of which stoning happened I really think people enjoyed it when these edicts came on down...)!

SO, I've seen this tale said many a time and I CANNOT believe the amount of heads I see move up and down while this is repeated. They LITERALLY agree with cold-blooded murder in the first-degree, for GATHERING FIREWOOD!!! In the damned ages BEFORE the Dark Ages-life SUCKED! You NEEDED FIRE!!! It wasn't a question of maybe I'll skip it tonight it was a matter of when do I start it up--every night! So you can see why people like this can be dangerous as someone from on high that they think is their leader gives them what essentially is a crime, they don't think to long about it--they act, and carry out whatever truly horrifying act it was.

This has been abused by many Cult leaders, like the "Alien Comet riders" or also known as Heaven's Gate in California or something even MORE horrifying like Jonestown (something that was horrific--there are some GREAT documentaries on this to watch,; I suggest looking for them) or something semi-recent like (straight from wiki), "The 778 deaths of members of the Ugandan group Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, on March 17, 2000, is considered to be a mass murder and suicide orchestrated by leaders of the group.", so you can see while large religions don't do these WILD events they DO slowly in fact do smaller and incrementally increase their crimes.

You might ask what crimes, but it is literally crimes that we can point to that are AGAINST the VERY FABRIC of your own teachings. Use the Golden Rule in your life and get rid of the authority driven craziness, it will only lead you to sadness, if you're a zealot--fight it within yourself.
--------

So, anyway, what I'm saying is that I very much agree that there ARE many people that are theistic believers (not just Christan ones mind you) that are GREAT to talk to and many times you don't even have to argue with them you can have laid back conversations with them--it's amazing who you run into.

BUT, for the people I mentioned they are nearly lost causes. I don't know exactly what their problem is but it does have something to do with the fact that they MUST be told a "truth" by a "high-ranking-official" for them to change a stance. They are TRUE believers, ZEALOTS to their cause and dangerous.

A little bit the same as you said @VoodooV, but I thought I'd add a few more nails into that coffin.

>> ^Januari:

@bobknight33 You HAVE to be kidding... any interest in defending those statements yourself?... Devil's advocate even?... i mean ANY defense/excuse/rationalization/explination... anything? I'd really love to hear it. Or just consider for a moment the possibility that the comments made by this bigot and the folks who support him, reflect VERY well on the intelligence level of the person in this video. I suspect you'd have an incredibly hard time finding someone who isn't this stupid to go on camera and actually support them...
>> ^bobknight33:
What a poor interview. This should have been with someone who had the intellectual capability to have this discussion. Where was the Pastor, Deacon or such who could have properly defended, justified the statements from the sermon.

If she was to represent any one else on any other topic she would have been just as bad.

She was railroaded for the pleasure of CNN and its audience.
That's not news that abuse.



he won't answer, because we're all part of the liberal conspiracy! He'd just be walking into a trap!

It wouldn't matter even if he did. You can't rationally explain that sort of irrational hate. People like that are long gone from the realm of reason.

They're ultimately cowards anyway. Only a few psychopaths would have the stomach to actually commit the kind of cold blooded murder that the pastor describes. You actually hand them a gun and tell them to shoot a bound up gay person and most, if not all, won't actually do it. They're trained to be subservient to their god, but when their god fails to deliver them to their straight's only heaven on earth, they'll eventually submit to the social authority that declares that all citizens get equal rights and they'll be subservient to that too and they'll die quietly as closeted bigots right alongside all the other closeted bigots that think blacks are inferior and women shouldn't have the right to vote.

Ultimately, that's why I'm so upset about this whole mess. Republicans and ALEC have essentially decided that not having any meaningful control on gun ownership wasn't good enough, they needed to give gun owners a license to kill too.

This is a very high-stakes version of the burden of proof fallacy. Why is it that Zimmerman got to shoot and kill someone based solely on his suspicions, but we can't arrest him for it unless we can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knew Treyvon wasn't a threat?

Why does the unarmed boy not get the "innocent until proven guilty" treatment? Because Zimmerman has already executed him? How could that be right?

Why isn't everyone unanimous in saying that we have to get to the bottom of not only what happened, but how we can fix our laws and institutions to treat a situation like this in a just way?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')
In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...
Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.

A stereo thief hit a guy with a bag of like 6 pounds. He got stabbed to death. The stabber got off. The stabber had been the one to chase him down... SYoG...

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
No, this video is not damning evidence... Stand Your Ground is obviously not understood by most members on the Sift.
Many individuals have gotten off scott-free because of this law. It has nothing to do with the police or their actions, or even competence of the prosecutors. Judges strike down Zimmerman-like cases all the time in Florida. What people want here is an exception.
You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')
In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...
Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.
Got a whole bunch of people who are defending Zimmerman not because they feel he's innocent, but because he used a gun. If it had been a knife or anything else, I don't think there would be so many supporters for Zimmerman under the SYG law.
But there is this constant fear that someone's coming to take their guns, that any law that makes it easier to keep and use their guns is sacrosanct. There is no actual "question" about it being reasonable or in the realm of sanity that someone could provoke a fight then kill the person. But it's become huge, because people see that the primary thing being used in these encounters are guns. And in fact they are being used against unarmed people most often.
In fact, there's news that gun enthusiasts are donating to Zimmerman's defense...simply because he used a gun. Not that they think he's actually not guilty gun or not....if it had been a baseball bat or kitchen knife...people wouldn't care nearly as much.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

No, this video is not damning evidence... Stand Your Ground is obviously not understood by most members on the Sift.
Many individuals have gotten off scott-free because of this law. It has nothing to do with the police or their actions, or even competence of the prosecutors. Judges strike down Zimmerman-like cases all the time in Florida. What people want here is an exception.
You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')
In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...
Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.

Got a whole bunch of people who are defending Zimmerman not because they feel he's innocent, but because he used a gun. If it had been a knife or anything else, I don't think there would be so many supporters for Zimmerman under the SYG law.

But there is this constant fear that someone's coming to take their guns, that any law that makes it easier to keep and use their guns is sacrosanct. There is no actual "question" about it being reasonable or in the realm of sanity that someone could provoke a fight then kill the person. But it's become huge, because people see that the primary thing being used in these encounters are guns. And in fact they are being used against unarmed people most often.

In fact, there's news that gun enthusiasts are donating to Zimmerman's defense...simply because he used a gun. Not that they think he's actually not guilty gun or not....if it had been a baseball bat or kitchen knife...people wouldn't care nearly as much.

No, this video is not damning evidence... Stand Your Ground is obviously not understood by most members on the Sift.

Many individuals have gotten off scott-free because of this law. It has nothing to do with the police or their actions, or even competence of the prosecutors. Judges strike down Zimmerman-like cases all the time in Florida. What people want here is an exception.

You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')

In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...

Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^longde:
Reading about this case a little more, I now see that Zimmerman's pop is a (retired) judge. Things are starting to make a little more sense. It appears the race factors is overshadowed by a cronyism factor in this case, and his slap on the wrist for assaulting cops in the past.

Was his dad a former judge in Florida? Cause I really don't understand if he isn't...it just seems completely stupid not to arrest him, even if you're GREAT BUDDIES with his dad. Surely you'd have to know that this is a really stupid career risk (not mentioning how fucking wrong it is).

These are my thoughts exactly and what leads me to be skeptical about what's going on. I could understand (but don't condone obviously) why they would try to cover this up. But the SECOND it hit national media if I was in there shoes I would instantly said "after further review of the evidence we are now placing Zimmerman under arrest and will hold him until trial". Then prayed nobody tried to sue me or something.
Then again I guess the pressure on them is so intense to not mess it up they don't want to hold zimmerman for too long and then have his (zimmerman's) attorney sue or try to get the case dropped because of "due process"
This video is very damning evidence against Zimmerman. The family is now saying "wait for the hospital records" but my understanding is if you have a broken nose the area around your face would be bruised right? His brother is saying "His (George's) nose is swollen". I'm not a doctor so maybe someone else wants to chime in here?

The first one I watched on mute so I was ok with the police using Tasers. Then I watched it off mute and realized they were killing a human being in cold blood when all he did was have a handle weapon. Gun beats spear...everyone knows this, that doesn't mean you have to demonstrate it always, this is what less than lethal force was made for.

EDIT: Fuck I hated watching all of that.

All-right men... now that you're sufficiently regressed, please go out there and kill some people by shooting them.

No, we mean it. You're a fucking army, go and kill people in cold blood. It's very sad the disconnect here. Blubbering child like reactions from these 'men', who then are expected to go and murder.

Did he shout "Stop!" or "I have a gun!" or "Put your hands up!" or "Drop the stuff!" or "Citizen's arrest!"

No.

He shouted "You're Dead" and then shot them both in cold blood. He wasn't convicted because he was a white man in Texas.

>> ^hpqp:

So let me paraphrase:
Derp: "Hey herp, stop protecting your kid, I want to torture it, kill its friends and make it hate you for abandoning it."
Herp: "Sure, torture away!"
Million dollar question: is Herp a moral person/being?
Bonus question: if Herp is all-powerful, what is he protecting his kid from in the first place?


I agree 100% with what you wrote here. The Book of Job presents a major contradiction to the idea of a benevolent, omniscient God. Which is why I think Dan Barker majorly dropped the ball here on what should have been a slam dunk.

>> ^hpqp:

But the whole point here is that the religious mindset causes an otherwise moral person (they all agreed the first scenario was wrong) to condone an immoral action if it was for religious reasons. Case in point: suicide and murder in Islam, both major "sins", are seen as okay if part of Jihad.


See, if this was Dan Barker's point, I think he screwed it up royally. He's comparing apples and oranges. I can do the same thing he did and get the same results with a completely non-religious issue:

Let's say someone breaks in a family's home in the middle of the night and terrorizes them--holds them at gunpoint, ties them up, and tortures them (similar to the original example). After having his way with them for some time, the criminal starts to kill each family member in front of the others, starting with the kids. After killing the wife, the criminal is about to kill the husband when the husband is able to break free of his bindings. A struggle ensues and the husband overcomes the criminal and ties the criminal up.

Now, remember, the criminal is secure. The husband makes sure the binds are tight and the criminal can't go anywhere. Instead of calling the police, though, the husband picks up the criminal's gun and shoots the criminal right in the head, instantly killing him. Is the husband a murderer?

I think you would find a majority of people who say yes.

The criminal was subdued and no longer a threat. In the American legal system, the husband would most likely be found guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter. It was clearly a revenge killing and the only thing in question really is the mental state of the husband at the time it takes place: was he upset enough that it was manslaughter or did he do it in cold blood?

Now, let's change the scenario slightly. The husband never breaks free. The criminal gleefully and cruelly kills him. After fleeing from the scene of the crime, the criminal later is captured by police and put on trial for his crimes. He's found guilty on all counts due to overwhelming evidence and is sentenced to death. After a lengthy appeals process that takes over a decade, the death sentence is carried out by the state.

Question: Is the state guilty of murder?

You will find that far fewer people are willing to say that the state is guilty of murder. But why don't they? Isn't it the same situation? The criminal is just as guilty of the crimes in either case--the trial just made the guilt official. The criminal has been apprehended and is secure in prison. Surrounded by thick walls, steel bars, and armed guards, he no longer represents a threat to the public. At his execution he is tied down and given a lethal injection (which is dissimilar from being tied up and shot in the head really only in the amount mess that needs to be cleaned up afterwards).

So what's different? What's "clouding the moral judgment" of the people who declare the husband guilty of murder but won't declare the state guilty of murder? Aren't they contradicting themselves?

No, not really. The answer is simply that people attribute different rights to people than they do to government. Almost any basic definition of government requires that government be authorized to use force to obtain compliance from the governed (see Weber's theory)--up too and including lethal force. People who don't believe the state to be guilty of murder believe the state has the right to deprive those who commit serious enough crimes of their life (for a variety of stated reasons such as discouraging other criminals, providing justice for the victims, etc.). An individual, on the other hand, does not have such a right. In other words, it's immoral for the individual to redress the wrong themselves, but it isn't immoral for the state to do so, according to death penalty proponents, on the basis of individual and governmental rights.

(For the record, I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. If you're interested in my reasons, please ask me on my profile rather than derail this thread).

And that is why Dan got the audience response he did. People agree that a human butchering another human is immoral, but ascribe a different set of rights to the Biblical God. In particular, in the more conservative Christian traditions, humans are seen as "belonging" to the Biblical God and to be done with as He pleases.

So I wasn't surprised at all at the response that Dan Barker got. He compared apples and oranges and then seemed surprise when people weren't willing to claim an apple was an orange. Given how ripe the Book of Job is for criticizing many of the basic tenets of Christian belief, I kind of face-palmed when I heard his argument. He had a great chance here to make some keen points (the ones @hpqp raised above) and he completely missed it, I think. What he certainly didn't show was that the audience condoned immoral actions by humans in the name of religion. He simply showed that Christians ascribe different rights to their god than they do to humans. He seems outraged by that, but--as I just showed above--many of us do the same sort of thing with non-religious institutions like government so I'm not sure why he seems so shocked.

So in summary--I didn't upvote because I found the argument to be weak-sauce.

Wow Lia's a cold blooded bitch.

Not sure what "shit" you're referring to, except maybe broken YT playlist submissions?

That's just yet another YouTube format we needed to add support for. This always has to be done on an as-needed basis because we never know what new formats they're defining.

If you just submitted the playlist url you provided:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9F0880AC5BA29C7D&feature=mh_lolz
you would have been able to submit it, but I have added support for their new format from your screenshot.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
@lucky760

I made a playlist to fix this deader.
http://videosift.com/video/Life-in-Cold-Blood-1-The-Cold-Blooded-Truth

With this new playlist:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9F0880AC5BA29C7D&feature=mh_lolz


This is the error I get:
http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc166/Boise_Lib/VideoSift2.jpg

I know you've heard about the shit going on. Is this just something else?

Thanks

@lucky760

I made a playlist to fix this deader.
http://videosift.com/video/Life-in-Cold-Blood-1-The-Cold-Blooded-Truth

With this new playlist:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9F0880AC5BA29C7D&feature=mh_lolz

This is the error I get:
http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc166/Boise_Lib/VideoSift2.jpg

I know you've heard about the shit going on. Is this just something else?

Thanks

The conservative agenda has systematically set up the economy over the last 50 years so that poor people are poorer and the middle class is disappearing.

What you mistakenly blame on conservatives is actually caused by the increase in government and the centralization of power. Larger government in bed with industry results in crony capitalism that steers wealth to large government and large companies. This is not the conservative agenda. That is the LIBERAL agenda which is promulgated by both democrats and the GOP. Fiscal conservatives want nothing to do with it. That is what the Tea Party is all about. Do you want to improve income disparity? Join the Tea Party and elect more fiscal conservatives to pare down big government, and knee-cap the crony capitalism that results from it.

So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"? You can hold someone accountable without killing them in cold blood.

First off – no one is killing in cold blood. That’s just your bias talking.

Second - Christ teaching people to avoid anger and revenge in their personal lives has nothing to do with capital punishment. A person can follow the turn the other cheek philosophy in their personal lives, and yet still support capital punishment for society’s guilty. Capital punishment isn’t about revenge. It is about justice.

And you're being utterly disingenuous to pretend they're "cheering for justice". That is BS and you know it. They are cheering for vengeance.

Who are you to say that? Are you a mind reader? Do you have psychic powers? Of course not. You’re just another biased neolib who is projecting your own anger and hatred onto other people. You say its BS. Well, could not someone else say it is “BS” to claim that neolibs are cheering ‘free choice’ when they applaud the murdering of innocent children? See how that works? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.