>> ^ChaosEngine:

@laura and @Sagemind, I'm not sure you understand what the word "protest" means.
"to give manifest expression to objection or disapproval; remonstrate."
If you do it silently and without causing a fuss, you're doing it wrong.


What you are describing is called civil disobedience. That can be good too, but it has a time and place. Most importantly, everyone involved should know that arrest is among the risks they are taking on, and be prepared for that eventuality. I've argued other places that this action would have been fine if the headline read "two dozen willing to be arrested to voice discontent over Citi's handling of student loans." Instead the headline read "mean old cops wouldn't let us shut down a business." Do you see how one can garner support and the other makes you look either clueless or manipulative.

I'd disagree. Most people doing protests for civil rights didn't have a draft of the Civil Rights Act in mind. They wanted "equality", which is pretty vague. They did have a pretty long and specific list of grievances that illustrated what kinds of equality they were looking for.

Same is true here. People want "fairness", which is pretty vague. But they also have a pretty long and specific list of grievances which illustrate what kind of fairness they're looking for.

I think the real issue they've got right now is that the civil disobedience they're engaging in isn't demonstrating the injustice they're fighting against.

>> ^rottenseed:

Concise point. Now you'd have to agree that all of those protests and movements that got us somewhere had a precise focus that everybody could agree upon. They were marching, picketing, and protesting one specific cause, not a vague "boogie-man". I fail to see that aim within this "movement". In fact, I think the vagueness of it is why there are such numbers. I think if there were a specific aim, that some people might not agree with, they'd lose some strength in numbers. It's easy to just yell and shout that you're being fucked, but it's another thing to march organized towards one goal. That's all I'm saying, no focus, no work will get done.

You have the right to conduct peaceful assembly. You want to protest, protest all you want. But when you start causing disruptions to others daily life you are, as netrunner said, - conducting civil disobedience.
I'm not saying that police officers don't overstep their bounds. They do it all the time. But there's a big difference between a woman getting wrongfully arrested, stripped naked and being forced to clothe herself in toilet paper and what's going on here. There's an even bigger difference between this and any Arab uprising. As soon as I see an OWS protester shoot video of a government sniper right before the sniper kills him - I'll change my mind. But if you're sitting in the street with out a permit and a police officer tells you to move and you don't move - You get arrested. Shocking!

The girl at 4:30 made me laugh. You're being detained for failure to comply - My guess is the officer told her and she didn't listen. You don't need your rights read to you because you are not under arrest. She'd be taken to the station and be arrested there or put into detention to cool down. At which point they would read her her rights. Most likely she got a ticket with a notice to appear and sent on her way. Sounds pretty harsh to me.

I'm not sure what to make of this video, really. Some thoughts, in no particular order:

In Syria, Bahrain, Libya, and Iran, the mere act of protesting was declared illegal. IIRC, in all four of those countries, violence was the only police response to protests, and in all four countries it escalated to police/military/paramilitary forces firing bullets at protesters.

That's not happening here.

In Egypt, the police didn't really crack down on the protests themselves. There were attempts to use agents provocateur to provoke violence to give the police some cause to shut down the protests, but that never worked. There were some touch and go moments when it seemed that the police were going to try to storm Tahrir square to forcibly end the protest, but that never happened (largely because the military stepped in and made sure that didn't happen). The result of the protests and accompanying strikes ended up toppling the Mubarak regime.

In America, things are a bit different. People who want to uphold the status quo want the protests ignored, and they know that violence and arrests will only help the protesters in the long run. So the OWS people have had to resort to a little provocation of their own. It's noble and self-sacrificing that they're doing so, and it does make the police look bad when they arrest people for innocuous sounding things (like directly protesting in on the steps of the NYSE itself, or blocking a bridge), but they're intentionally doing so to draw attention. It's called civil disobedience.

So really, I'm left a bit confused by the video. The title of the video is "I'm not moving", but spends a ton of time highlighting police violence at the protests here and abroad (and it's mostly abroad). When they finally show the guy who says he's not moving, they don't show him getting arrested or beaten, they just hear him begging to get arrested, and seemingly being ignored.

So is the point "I have a point to make that I'm willing to get arrested for" (i.e. "I'm Not Moving") or is the point "Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are hypocritical tyrants because the police arrest me when I intentionally try to get arrested to make a point."

You can't really have it both ways.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Martin Luther King managed to create protests and a movement that DIDN'T get in people's faces or disrupting the business of innocent bystanders who have nothing to do with what you're protesting. He did it with a positive, uplifting, inspirational message that people of good sense could not help but agree with. These yahoos are doing the exact opposite. They couldn't be driving people AWAY from their cause any better if they were trying.


wrong wrong WRONG!
martin luther king jr knew full well the only way a peaceful protest would be effective was by interfering with business.
any protest that was even moderately successful interfered with business and the everyday machinery of government.
now we have "free speech zones"(see:RNC 2008 st paul MN) which are many times far distances from the very thing being protested.....how convenient.
this is where the protesters can be marginalized and ignored but get in the way of everyday business and NOW you will get noticed.
and the government will send its goons in to strong arm and intimidate because the business class scream bloody murder.
there will be arrests.
there will be macings.
there will be violence and yes,even sometimes murders.
all of which can now be clandestinely videotaped from a phone exposing the strong arm tactics of the government all in the name of "keeping the peace".

this aint rocket science.it is effective and it works.
your obedient slave solution just leaves the protester flaccid and ineffective.
you have the RIGHT of redress.
you have the RIGHT to assemble.
and the police are within their powers to cite or detain you for civil disobedience.
they are NOT within their powers to:maim,torture,brutalize and disregard the laws in which they were sworn to uphold.
this is about challenging power and authority and the only way to do that properly is to disrupt the machinations of power and authority.

Theoretically, you're correct. In America social change can occur by movements - like queer rights, gender equality, etc. But, we're no longer in the 60's - the right has dampered/tampered with every facet of our society to the point where when people are protesting on Wall Street they are not protesting for social change they are protesting for governmental change because the people on Wall Street and all of those corporations own the government. They will not stand for little peons whining about financial inequality because they own the news, they own the jobs, they own everything with a "let them eat cake" attitude; they will never let up with their class warfare.

I'd love to see a huge movement occur because then people would realize how serious they are in order to continue with the status quo. You'd end up seeing microwave technology used on the masses involved. I mean I've seen it before but only on smaller scales.

>> ^Yogi:

Anyone who says we can't change the government through social change, education, or civil disobedience is simply ignorant of history. It's not their fault though because we're instructed that the 60's were the "Time of Troubles" where we had drugs and free love and a war no one liked and nothing significant happened that wasn't brought about by learned great people. The change that occurred was massive and there have been other social changes as well. We threw off slavery in the US before we did that it was thought to be completely impossible...then we fought and African Americans got their just rights as well and that didn't take a civil war.

Anyone who says we can't change the government through social change, education, or civil disobedience is simply ignorant of history. It's not their fault though because we're instructed that the 60's were the "Time of Troubles" where we had drugs and free love and a war no one liked and nothing significant happened that wasn't brought about by learned great people. The change that occurred was massive and there have been other social changes as well. We threw off slavery in the US before we did that it was thought to be completely impossible...then we fought and African Americans got their just rights as well and that didn't take a civil war.

I think it's appropriate to be jaded. Mass protests only seem to work once in each country. After that, police learn not to use water hoses, and the public regards the whole thing with a "been there done that" attitude. I can't think of any major policy change brought about by street protests in the US since the civil rights movement.

On the other hand, using force to bring change to a democracy is trampling on the rights of the majority that supports the system. Even if you believe they are misguided to do so, people do elect the government that we have. They have the right to be governed by the laws written by their elected representatives.

>> ^shagen454:

I love it but I've been completely jaded by our government. I applaud everyone who is out there but this will not solve or inspire any change. Unfortunately, -in my opinion- the only way for change to occur is not through social means, civil disobedience or anything but brutal force.

I love it but I've been completely jaded by our government. I applaud everyone who is out there but this will not solve or inspire any change. Unfortunately, -in my opinion- the only way for change to occur is not through social means, civil disobedience or anything but brutal force.

I fully support what they did. Disrupting a speech is a perfectly legitimate form of protest and given Israel's continued policies in the Gaza strip it is certainly warranted, in my opinion.

I do not support them trying to get the charges dropped, though. The whole point of civil disobedience is to break the law peacefully and to go to jail for what you believe. If they feel that strongly about the issue they should do whatever jail-time they're given with pride--and be willing to do it again if necessary.

Honestly, I don't see how they even have a case. As this article clearly explains, the Supreme Court has routinely ruled in favor of governments' (both local and federal) right to limit the time, manner, and place of speech so long as there is no infringement on content. Given that the speech-place will probably not be considered a "traditional public forum" (see the article) I don't think they have much of a legal chance of winning.

Related article: Woman tackled and arrested for disrupting Netanyahu's speech in front of U.S. Congress

Food for thought (from the article above):

And after I spoke out, Netanyahu said, you know, “This is what’s possible in a democracy. And you wouldn’t be able to get away with this in other countries like Tunisia.” And I think that is ridiculous and absurd. If this is what democracy looks like, that when you speak out for freedom and justice, you get tackled to the ground, you get physically violated and assaulted, and then you get hauled off to jail, that’s not the kind of democracy that I think I want to live in.

@zombieeater that is such bullshit. You want to eliminate all religions from the public sphere, fine, but don't try to hide it in your particular interpretation of the first amendment.

How does saying a one minute prayer at a public ceremony materially support christianity? I could see if some other non-christian students wanted to do something but were refused.

You know, if precedent really is against a friggin one minute prayer, then I would say civil disobedience is certainly called for, as the students in the video did. I guess this particular law will be like the 55MPH speed limit.

The kid that sued. What type of parents does he have to empart such a warped sense of priority? Hopefully he will go to college, broaden his horizons, and realize there are more important and interesting issues than a one minute frigging prayer.

Yogi, I agree with this thought - I always like your comments. You seem like a cool dude or dudette, haha!

I think it's all about solidarity in local politics. The left will always be ignored though. I've witnessed it, I've recounted many times when you know San Francisco / Bay Area residents shutdown SF for several business days the day we started bombing Iraq. You didn't see it in the news - it had no support though it was a democratic movement & one I'd venture to say was an important statement for all Americans who agreed with it. I've seen, what I'd call "mainstream" tactics at protests - it's exactly what mainstream media is about. They create their own scenarios and infiltrate in order to break it up. The whole system is corrupt. It's exactly why Bush was voted in twice. What do we do? I refuse to vote any longer except in local politics. I could go on and on with this topic.

Too many people believe in democratic change through protests and who we vote in as a President. It simply doesn't work that way unless people become very aggressive on a very large scale. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm just saying it needs to be very organized, the message simple and the actions hopefully non-violent - but I have not seen non-violent disobedience work in all of my 30 years.

>> ^Yogi:

I'm starting to have little sympathy for the American public. I started out with hating these corporations and hating the Right...now I'm starting to get pissed at the Left and the people. We have the internet, we have the ability to organize...so why the fuck aren't you doing it? The Left could've been organizing people the last couple decades they've fucked up royal. Online movements translated into protests and a groundswell of progress could've happened (and can still) but hasn't. Not that there hasn't been victories but what I see is TONS of like minded people, not happy with the way the corporations and the government fuck us and then not doing anything about it.
We have a democracy...it's not entirely broken. USE IT!

I watched some of your video..I may finish it at some point. I have to give it credit, it's quite a sophisticated attack vehicle for atheism. It attempts to decontruct the mechanisms for faith but so far it has some glaring errors. In the video covering prayer in the deconstruction process, it has a fundemental misunderstanding of Gods omniscience and the purpose of prayer. While it is true that God knows our needs before we ask

Matthew 6:8

Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

it isn't true that God has already decided a matter before we ask about it.

Genesis 18:17-25

Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Now this is a special case, but Abraham negotiated with God and He decided what to do based on that negotiation. It is the same with prayer. The Lord may be set to do one thing, but may change His mind based on intercessory prayer done by one or several Christians. He may impart a blessing upon someone that normally wouldn't have received it if no one had asked about it.

Prayer is more than just asking for things, it is about communion and growth. Your friend made the mistake of making the Lord completely impersonal, by thinking he was just receiving commands from the master control. Ironically, he thought this was bringing him closer in his personal relationship with God when it was actually driving him apart. This is what happens when people think they know better than God.

1 Thessalonians 5:17

Pray without ceasing.

Luke 6:28

bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

etc

I feel bad for him, specifically because of this scripture:


Hebrews 6:4-6

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

It is quite shameful what he has done, and I can tell you there is more to this story than he is saying. It's not that I doubt the essential truth of his story, that he was once a devout Christian. That much was obvious to me the first time I heard him speak and looked in his eyes. There is just another spirit at work here which doesnt match the atheistic mindset. It's hard to say what his agenda is but it's not pro-atheist. It's pro-something else, but whatever it is, it's anti-christianity. The pretense of respect he is giving God is just a subterfuge..he doesn't have any respect for God what so ever..it's just to make the medicine go down smoother. The repetitive music is another clue to the disingenuousness of the presentation.

As for me, I don't fit any of his criteria. I was once just like you. Blind to the spirit, a strict materialistic, and suspicious of all religion and all supernatural claims. I rejected most of it as outright nonsense. I grew up that way and saw no reason to change.

One day God tapped me on the shoulder and let me know He was there. Your guess is as good as mine as to why. It's not as if I deserved to know. If I had to guess it would be that I was honestly interested in what the truth was, and I was willing to change my ways if necessary. It was more important for me to know the truth than to be right.

To convince myself God isn't there I would have to give myself a lobotomy. I would have to gouge my eyes out and pour superglue in my ears. I would have to do it deliberately, in spite of Him..meaning, I would have to deliberately deceive myself but I am fairly certain He wouldn't let me forget.

In reference to your scenerio, I think you make a mistake about Gods omniscience as well. God doesn't have absolute foreknowledge in this scenerio. For instance in Gen. 15:13-18 God predicts that the fourth generation of israelites will reach Cannan. But it is actually the fifth generation that reaches it because of disobedience. This means His prediction was based on probability.

For a being to truly have free will, their actions must to a certain extent be unpredictable to God. After God had Abraham prove his loyalty to Him by going through with sacrificing Issaic, God said "Now I know you love me". The verse suggests that until that moment, God didn't know that for sure.

This isn't to suggest God doesn't have foreknowledge at all. He obviously does, since He prophicies about things hundreds or thousands of years away and they come true. It is to suggest that God limited Himself for our sake. We have evidence of this in the person of Jesus Christ. Though He was God, He put aside His power and capability and knowledge to be fully submitted to the Fathers will. He depended on the Father for everything. Not just as an example, but for His mission to be accomplished through His revelation of the Father to the people.

It goes to the ontological argument, of what is the greater being. The one who cannot do anything original because everything he could do has already been done in His mind, or the one who can craft something even He couldn't fully anticipate. I go for option 2. It doesn't make sense for God to get mad at someone for doing something He already knew was going to happen.

My theory is the scenerio itself is certain. It has a beginning, it has an end. What is inbetween He may have certain ideas about, but obviously open to modification. He may plan for every possible scenerio but never quite know which will unfold because He has given us a measure of unpredictability.

So in this scenerio..

God creates a perfect world, giving man a blank slate for good or evil

Man chooses evil, God enforces the rules, death comes into the world and creation falls

Man is corrupted from sin and does continual evil that God is always trimming back and correcting

God works within the evil man creates, but it reaches the point of no return..

God is ready to give up on humans but finds one human he can work with

God resets the world, gives man another chance through Noah

Man is up to his old tricks but God sends His Son into the world this time to redeem Creation

Jesus imputes His righteouness and sinless nature into humanity, restoring them, takes our just punishment onto Himself and dies on the cross for our sins

He rises again breaking the power of death over humanity (which came from sin) and giving everyone the way to eternal life

God sets a date to judge the world, and will send His Son back when the church has spread the gospel to the four corners..

Jesus returns, comes back for His church and destroys the kingdom of the antichrist.

God judges the world and repays each according to their deeds
After the judgement, God destroys the corrupt creation and remakes it entirely new, and this time it will be permanently perfect. Thanks to Christ, the ones who believed in Him will have perfected natures and will sin no more and live forever in paradise

If you want to talk about greed and self-interest that is fine. I am a student of the human nature, and have many logical proofs I can offer even from a secular perspectives. My communication can always use fine tuning, however, I endevour that people should know the truth, because though they may stubbornly reject it at this point, will at some point need it, and more than that, just plain need to hear it. You discount the power of God completely, but I know He is always at work and the truth will facilitate that every time. I also appreciate that you noticed the unfair treatment I am receiving from other sifters. There is no reason to downvote these videos. They are well made and aren't masquarading as anything other than what they are. It's not as if they're in danger of becoming popular. They sin when they do this, and this is written about them:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I do dig Ecclesiastes - easily the most raw, human and cynical chapter of the good book.
http://videosift.com/video/Scorpion-vs-Black-Widow-Intense-sheesh?loadcomm=1#comment-290039
In short, here is why I think the main, overarching plot of the Bible is silly.
Summary:
God creates flawed humans.
Flawed humans do flawed things.
God punishes all present and future humans because of the flaws in his prototypes.
After many generations, God drowns 99.9% of his land dwelling creatures save two of each. (not sure why the fish get off so easy)
Despite this massive genocide, humans are still flawed.
God impregnates a human virgin woman - in a committed relationship - without consent - who gives birth to a human/God hybrid son. (Kinda weird and rape-y to be honest)
The son is tortured and 'dies for our sins'. (What does that even mean, couldn't God just forgive us without this cruel theatrical charade that so few people of the world are physically able to witness?)
Jesus comes back from the dead (which isn't really that big of a deal, considering he is a part God).
Finally, after all of this violence and suffering, God decides to destroy the world, and take those who believe in him to heaven, and to punish those with skeptical or scientific minds with eternal suffering.
I mean, I guess I can understand mass murder, if God thinks so little of us that our destruction is no more tragic than Atari burying thousands of copies of E.T. in the desert. But if we are insignificant ants, then why the strict moral code that forbids murder? Are we unique and special creatures, or just crash test dummies to be toyed with?
None of the actions of God seem wise for a being of such knowledge and power. The Bible sounds like mythology. It sounds like a combination of campfire stories, moral parables, juicy pulp fiction, dirty jokes, political posturing, medical advice and pre-scientific speculation. It sounds like an anthology of the best of the best literature of early human civilization.
If God were real, why doesn't he just openly and clearly communicate it? Why all the rites and rituals? "Hey, dft, this is God you atheist schmuck.... or should I say ex-athiest schmuck. Put down the pork and put on your beanie!" That would be clear and to the point, and if done convincingly, would add a pretty decent guy to the ranks of his faithful.
Also, his followers are so hung up on pride, that they miss a good chance of making a connection. I told you that I don't believe in Satan, but that I do oppose the greed and ruthless self interest that your Satan seems want to champion. If you cared more about the principles of the bible than the principals in the Bible, wouldn't you be serving your lord better? Shouldn't you nurture the things we have in common and downplay the stuff I think is absurd? Baby steps. Religionists have no strategy or common sense when it comes to apologetics. You argue with me as if I believe in God and Satan.
Anyway, I've made these points so many times, and they just bounce off the framework of faith, just as your points bounce off my framework of reason. There will be no headway because our criteria for belief run so contrary. I think it's cool that you fight for what you believe in so passionately, and wish people wouldn't downvote your videos to the point that they are killed. I do think you could come up with more productive styles of argument.
I'd be curious to get your opinion on this video: http://videosift.com/video/Why-I-am-no-longer-a-Christian-Must-Watch

Or, God limited His omniscience so we could have free will. In the bible, Gods foreknowledge is not absolute. He changes His plans according to what people do. For instance, He predicted that the 4th generation of israelites would reach the promise land, but because of disobedience it was the 5th generation that actually got there.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
The devil was once an ArchAngel who was created faultless, the most beautiful and intelligent of Gods creations. He became corrupted because he became enamoured of his own glory, thought himself superior and desired in his pride to receive worship and replace God on His throne.
And the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful God knew this was going to happen even as He created him because He exists outside of time.
So, either God knowingly created evil incarnate or He made a mistake; a "design flaw", if you will; during the creation of ha-satan.