I completely understand your sentiment, raven, but I feel I must agree with Dag. It would probably be best to keep the channel as general as possible.

And you can still have all your War Talk posts on just current events if you like, but videos from any other war shouldn't have to be excluded or have new, also specific WW2, Vietnam, or Iraq1991 channels, for example.

It's more than likely that 99% of the videos in the channel are going to be concerning current events anyhow.

Frankly I agree with raven's standpoint, current events and realism can only strengthen the sift's goals to be an alternative media outlet. When I think of snuff (and this may go against the VS guideline definition) I think of the loss of human life with a perverse presentation, vids from the front are not meant to support perversion but to support awareness. The best way to make this argument simple is to find a way to keep vids from the front that some may find offensive away from those that are easily offended, i.e. the much suggested tags of *graphic or *war. With such tags in place, if you think it will bother you...just don't watch.

The Real News Network is a recent initiative and is not a fully fledged channel yet. So that explains why the setup isn't that professional, just look at the quality from the interview feed.

The special thing about the network is that is will be publicly funded through donations. They will not accept government or corporate money. So no advertising and no outside influence. I'm thinking of donating once they start the real channel and the programming is good.

It seems like a really good source to get other views on the news and current events.

http://therealnews.com/

They also have a lot of videos online on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRealNews

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying your opinion is entirely impossible. I was just offering an alternative possibility. You know with adrenaline pumping you aren't always entirely accurate in word choice, esp. if while there first-hand you interpret something differently than a video playback implies.

Either way, I hope you're not saying that immediately when starting the traffic stop he was intentionally lying and already planning to end up killing him later somehow. In reality, his words at the beginning didn't have anything to do with the conclusion of the chase. IOW, the officer saying he was being almost rammed had no bearing on the suspect's final decision to hit the gas with an officer on his hood.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
I think if you watch it again you can clearly see that the suspect stops his car after making the u-turn, in fear of a possible collision.

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
I agree this doesn't deserve a place in "Police gone bad." We missed the precious seconds prior to the firing officer ending up on the hood, but it seems like he was standing beside or in front of the vehicle when the driver accelerated which is how he probably ended up jumping on the hood. (Unlikely that the suspect vehicle was stopped and the officer just decided to climb aboard rather than approach the driver-side window.)

In any case, once the officer the was up there, the driver had no choice but to stop. The officer was not in the wrong, nor was he lying about the driver trying to ram him; it's very understandable that in the heat of the moment the suspect's initial U-turn could seem like an attempted collision that just couldn't turn tightly enough. After all, if he was just going to run, he could have just gone straight ahead.

I don't agree this is merely LCD indulgence. I think open discussions about important, controversial current events are very worth having, especially when they involve state versus citizen.

I agree this doesn't deserve a place in "Police gone bad." We missed the precious seconds prior to the firing officer ending up on the hood, but it seems like he was standing beside or in front of the vehicle when the driver accelerated which is how he probably ended up jumping on the hood. (Unlikely that the suspect vehicle was stopped and the officer just decided to climb aboard rather than approach the driver-side window.)

In any case, once the officer the was up there, the driver had no choice but to stop. The officer was not in the wrong, nor was he lying about the driver trying to ram him; it's very understandable that in the heat of the moment the suspect's initial U-turn could seem like an attempted collision that just couldn't turn tightly enough. After all, if he was just going to run, he could have just gone straight ahead.

I don't agree this is merely LCD indulgence. I think open discussions about important, controversial current events are very worth having, especially when they involve state versus citizen.

Well, I've attempted to get Mr. Roofles to fix the embed code and it's been more than a day, so I'll go ahead and *discard rather than allowing a dead video to sit in the queue for 2 more days.

Anyone else want to re-submit? Please do. VideoSift is now two days behind in this oh so important current event.

"Not one of the religious types have been able to offer a compelling rebuttal using evidence and logic to support their reasoning." To your points:

1. Atheists are more annoying than Christians.

I tend to agree with you that this argument matters little and is tangential to the whole topic. However, you've supplied a fair amount of evidence for this point including inflammatory phrases such as "magical teapot believers", "nutjobs", "full of shit", "I think you know where you can store your advice", etc.

2. Atheists are more evangelical than Christians.

Again, I don't see it being too central to the original discussion. It is interesting, though, that you stated "Militant, in your face, logical, rational atheism is the only chance we have of salvaging the shambles you religious wingnuts have made of this planet." Sounds like you're out to "evangelize" change in the world then? Perhaps even applauding where militant atheism is applied? More on that in point #4.

3. All humans, both atheistic and religious, are irrational beings ruled by emotions with their beliefs as thinly veiled icing on a primordial cake.

A strawman argument that is so over simplified and incorrect that it isn't worth addressing.


4. Christians have not been responsible for mass genocide.

Nobody denies the crusade, inquisition, etc. took place, but the issue is whether these people are "Christian" or not. Did they call themselves Christian? Yes. Were their actions aligned with the words and example Jesus laid out for his followers and, therefore, what Christians are supposed to be like? No. You are assuming that all those who claim to be Christian are truthful representatives of Jesus and not self-centered, power-hungry, opportunists who saw it was fashionable to call themselves "Christian" given the power structure of the day. You are attempting to equate two vastly different entities and, therefore, the logic fails.

Is it fair to level the same charges against atheism by equating the actions of atheistic states to represent all atheists? 26.3 million killed in China under Mao Tse Tung, 66 million in the Soviet Union under Lenin/Stalin/Khrushchev, 2.5 million under Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc. If you are going to make the claim that Christians are genocidal monsters, it would seem that atheists are in the same boat. If you want to talk about current events, communist regimes with atheistic tenants (e.g. China, North Korea, etc.) continue to be highlighted for human rights abuses as they target those purely because of religious beliefs (do a search on hrw.org for examples). The problem here is that it is hard to argue that these leaders are not following the "beliefs" laid down by what you portray of atheism -- religious people are "nutjobs" and there is work to do in "salvaging the shambles you religious wingnuts have made of this planet".


5. God wants us to have free will.

Free will is a core point used against the logical "problem of evil" or "problem of hell" arguments. You've had your own ad hominem arguments to try and avoid it -- "That's some good old fashioned bullshit religious guilt if I've ever heard it."or "More rhetoric and no substance." You also attempt to claim that free will can't exist in the Christian view -- "And the Christian set of rules by which you must live is most certainly NOT free." You are trying to change the definition of free will with freedom from consequence -- again, another logical fallacy. Along your line of argument, free will should include the ability to choose to go to heaven. However, if heaven is a "perfect place", would it be perfect if anyone and everyone could be there? Free will cannot make logical impossibilities true -- can I choose to make myself invisible? score 5000 on the SAT test? etc.


6. Atheists use "old arguments" that have do not hold water.

Old argument? Yes. The core argument of the cartoon is "The Problem of Hell", a variant of "The Problem of Evil"/Epicurus' Riddle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell) which is a logical argument that has been around for a long while.

Hold water. Not bad. You could say the same of the theistic ontological argument too. Atheists and Christians have used these for some time and, as such, it is apparent that neither side considers the other's logical "proof" so compelling as to concede defeat. I expect that you'd claim this to be more "bullshit", as you are fond of saying, so I'll be more direct. "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent." is not true. Free will and yet being unable to choose evil are logically inconsistent. On one hand, you have free will with the potential for evil while on the other, no evil but no free will.


7. Well over 90% of the world is religious.

Arguing over a relatively small percentage seems to be silly -- the point that the vast majority of the population is religious isn't impacted by the difference. It seems equally ridiculous to claim that a majority is proof of something -- I'm sure that Christian and Atheist alike can site a majority opinion either now or in the past that we consider incorrect.


And to sum up what we've heard outside of these points:

1. Then I suppose Jesus and the old testament God are full of crap as well. Which I happen to agree with.
2. But it doesn't change the fact that the Bible is rife with examples of God threatening eternal damnation and hellfire to anyone who doesn't follow his rules.

For all of the times you've bashed people for lacking logic or evidence, where is it when you make these assertions? You've read what Jesus did/said and can comment specifically how he is full of crap then?


Although it has been interesting to watch the comments go back and forth on this and to jump in from time to time, I find the following quotation by Elbert Hubbard appropriate, "Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice." As this string of comments (along with hundreds like it scattered about the internet) shows, God is not going to be proved or disproved by logical arguments alone.

I'm most interested in your suggestion that you can use current events to detail how non-religious groups have fucked the world up. I would LOVE to see a cogent argument concerning current geopolitical messes that doesn't involve religious nutjobs. Seriously. Back up your bullshit.

Imayliffe - Your posted comments detail an extensive history how those claiming to be Christians have screwed up multiple times. While you may want to blame Christians for everything, we could use history or current events to detail how other groups of people have messed up too. Your statement that this is "good old fashioned bullshit religious guilt" ignores the very facts you've tried to use to bolster your own claims.

Your fake progressivism makes me sick Imayliffe; intellectual rebels coming out of the woodwork. Repeating old folksy arguments, and claiming supreme truth.
This is sooo 19th century...

just goes to show you that the unthinking mass will remain the unthinking mass.

More rhetoric and no substance.

Let's recap this thread for those playing at home.

The "arguments" set forth by the religious nuts so far amount to the following:

1. Atheists are more annoying than Christians.
2. Atheists are more evangelical than Christians.
3. All humans, both atheistic and religious, are irrational beings ruled by emotions with their beliefs as thinly veiled icing on a primordial cake.
4. Christians have not been responsible for mass genocide.
5. God wants us to have free will.
6. Atheists use "old arguments" that have do not hold water.

All of these arguments I have refuted with supporting evidence.

And yet, not one of the religious types have been able to offer a compelling rebuttal using evidence and logic to support their reasoning.

So until you are going to actually provide some substance and evidence for your claims that "other groups have messed up too" and use facts to contradict the points I have made, dismiss with the hyperbolic ad hominem bullshit and man up.

All I've heard so far is "No, you're wrong" from the religious crowd without a scant piece of logical argument to back up their ridiculous claims.

Grow a pair and make a coherent point, or shut the fuck up and go back to feeling guilty about existing because you can't please your imaginary friend in the sky.

Imayliffe - Your posted comments detail an extensive history how those claiming to be Christians have screwed up multiple times. While you may want to blame Christians for everything, we could use history or current events to detail how other groups of people have messed up too. Your statement that this is "good old fashioned bullshit religious guilt" ignores the very facts you've tried to use to bolster your own claims.

"Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but we just got our asses kicked, man!"

I agree a general sense of manners and hospitality needs to be present in the community. I also feel friendly banter is what make me so engrossed with the sift. A applaud fedquip on the post.

However I must disagree with a neutral vote. That will just keep crap on the sift that should be nixed. i.e. there is a post over a year old on this sift that has 0 votes. two more down and it's off the sift. (And in my honest opinion is where it should stay.)

Things change, if the Sift lives to be a hundred no one is going to give a damn about all the Paris Hilton videos or others related to current events that had little impact on todays society.

Neutral voting is a way of turning Videosift into a cesspool.

This brings me to comment voting. I hate the idea of having to justify why I vote for something. It already pisses me off that everyone and their dog wants to know why I didn't fall head over heals for their video. (Not to mention I don't want e-mails every couple of hours with a comment saying "nice vid." or "you suck."

Vote for Pedro

Quite a war story in that waiting room.

I question why anyone should turn this into a sheer numbers game (on any side of the debate). That strikes me as lacking in broader perspective. It's about national security, international diplomacy and the fate of nations. Many of us who feel that the reasons for entering the war were misrepresented also feel that national security is indeed a very grave concern and that poorly played hands of this magnitude will have serious consequences for many decades to come.

Not all of us think in terms of black and white. And not all of us are ignorant of our history or current events, unlike the characters in your anecdote.

And this is why I personally no longer honestly trust any media source. They try their best to control the opinions of millions of people everyday. Instead of reporting the news they show things like this. This is entertainment. This is just like Entertainment Tonight and all those other shows that take a WILD spin on current events. They just turn what people used to look to for educated, accurate news, into a circus. The only thing I will ever watch on Fox is Family guy, and even that is taking a large turn for the worse. It's a sad country we live in but you know what I do? I turn off the television. Worst American invention ever.

"...a world where the bigger the lie, the better..."

AnimalsForCrackers, your timing is excellent. I was just discussing this very concept moments ago with a friend. I was speculating that while the Internet has made information more available for all of us to fact check public figures and outrageous claims, it has also created a new method for spreading persuasive disinformation on a large scale. I do think that some are incredibly effective at doing this, and it works on even those of us who are wary and perfectly clever.

At the most obvious levels, this is evident to those who pay attention, in viral advertising, product placement and cross marketing methods. I speculate that it runs much deeper than that however. Political and ideological propaganda may be much more sophisticated than many of us realize. Some organizations know how to read the demographics represented on popular interactive sites, as well as the traditional media, and know how to best deliver content that is effective at framing the debate, getting certain buzzwords into the public sphere, informing us how current events make us feel, so on.

Andrew Keen discusses the viral marketing aspect of this a bit in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN_n7I0PM3w
Though he doesn't get into anything nearly as broad (or arguably, paranoid) as what I've suggested. Though he does question what Google might do with the vast aggregate information collected on users.