I'm so angry this man is not my president elect right now.

Good work douchebags. You thought you were so clever with your fucked up voting strategies, bitching about "lesser of two evil" choices, refusing to vote and taking a stand against...whatever the fuck you thought you were doing. Now we have a thin skinned, narcissistic, ignorant, man-child for our president.

Stop trying to rationalize this. This is not a voter revolt, this is not a paradigm shift in politics, this is not Hillary Clinton's fault or Debbie Wasserman Schultz's doing; this is the result of the masses falling for decades of misinformation combined with an emotional appeal to our worst instincts by a demagogue. You fell for it while you patted yourself on the back for being so much smarter than everyone else. Now we're fucked.

So grow the fuck up and do something to fix this.

Besides being a "job creator" and pitching this inflammatory Ad that is fully in support of the Republican platform by way of fear inducement... It is scary to see the final repercussions from Citizen's United and see that a private billionaire like Mr. Peterffy can just put up a random add, FULL of distortion and outright lies

So what exactly is he lying about? Hungary's poverty? That socialism destroys incentive?

I decided that it was worth our time to have this ad here, due to its historical ramifications and to really underline the lengths people in power or with wealth will go to, to get their way. It also deserves to get the backlash it needs to have thrown at it due to its utter ridiculous nature. This ad plays off of your emotional appeal, to your natural instinct to care.

Yeah, that's what political ads do, appeal to emotions. What do you think Dopey Change was running on? Facts? Logic?

But, the real truth is that some of it is probably created in a Hollywood studio, BUT if he IS showing true strife in Hungary he most likely has the markings of a person with almost NO empathy. Last, as must ALWAYS be pointed out, to basically call out these idiots, we are not ANYWHERE close to a SOCIALIST government! GET OVER IT! Your talking point sucks and it's nearly 20 years old now.

We're very close to a socialist government. The bastards have their tentacles in every process, business and action, unwelcome or not. New taxes continue to appear, money we don't have continues to burn. The Supreme Court has incorrectly ruled that individuals can be forced to buy a product, something that would have been scoffed at even 20 years ago. Responsibility has been supplanted by government warnings and programs. You can't even cut down a tree on your own land without approval from some dick in an office thousands of miles away. But we're not screwed like Europe...yet.

It's funny in the end that he is so remarkably scared of paying MORE taxes, yet he spends HUGE amounts of money to try and stop it with ads... It's all so ironic somehow. I just knew this guy was an 1% personality, when he endorses the ad at the end with his own name. Do everyone a favor if you have a Google account setup and go to the video, login, and vote it down.

I'm confident Mr. Peterrfy isn't afraid of paying more taxes, but he sees SOMETHING the American left does not.

What could it be?

@dag Dude, do you even know what they were protesting? They were protesting a lawsuit being dismissed.

There are a lot of legitimate questions to be asked about this stunt. If you haven't read the ruling, or can't discuss it intelligently, I'd rather not argue with another blind, knee-jerk, faith-based cheerleader.

Anything less shows a profound disrespect for the role of the judiciary in interpreting the law.

So what will it be? Got any arguments that don't amount to emotional appeals?

BTW, you might avoid mentioning dear leader given whom Kokesh works for.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Now you're just being disingenuous. I'm not keep it a secret, I've offered to share it with you. Your attitude now and attempt to goad me with an emotional, and even biblical appeal (love when atheists do that) is exactly the reason I am not posting it in a public forum. Since you're getting all hot and heavy about it now, here are two good reasons why not:


Woah shinyblurry, what attitude? I'm not getting "hot and heavy" here. So far we've had a pretty calm and rational discourse. And as for an emotional appeal: you brought emotions into this re: not publicly saying what your proof for god's existence was so as to not subject your sacred beliefs to scorn and ridicule. BUt let's put that aside as the point is moot to the central thread of our discussion.

My continuing question was not about what your secret proof was - I accept that you don't want to share it *publicly* - but as to the reason why you should want to keep it private. I should have chosen my words better. I mean, why choose to just tell one person privately (your offer to me) rather than continue to discuss it publicly as we have had?

OK, I admit the bible quote was misjudged - as this is exactly the kind of thing I had been trying to steer away from (Should have followed the 'don't post while drinking' rule!) I meant to keep this on a "personal belief" level rather than quoting verses, linking to other websites, and youtube clips. My point in quoting this was that from what I've read in the bible during my catholic upbringing god rewarded those who preached his word and stood up for their beliefs and punished those who denied him because of the possible personal costs involved. You know, in a sort of "don't hide your light under a bushel" way.

To run down our exchange so far:
I have asked about and listened to the story of your conversion to theism. I have asked what the proof was that god gave you personally (as you have said he did) and you said that you were not prepared to discuss that publicly. I have asked why you would not want to share it publicly. You have replied that your beliefs were sacred and you didn't want expose them to scorn and ridicule. I have tried to understand why mere scorn and ridicule would be a reason to do this in the face of such an amazing proof. You've already shown that you are more than able for the slings and arrows of anyone on this site: water off a duck's back - so why would scorn and ridicule be an obstacle to you?

At no stage have I questioned the existence or validity of you proof. I'm just trying to follow the logical thread , which I lost after your 2nd to last post in our conversation.

So the questions remain:
1)What do you mean by "sacred"?
2)Why wouldn't you choose to disregard the incredibly minor price of scorn and ridicule on this anonymous and relatively minor forum (which you appear to have had no problem in dealing with in prior posts!) by publicly stating the the manner in which, having contacted you personally and directly, god proved to you that you were not imagining him? What could you possibly have to lose?

This is what I am trying to understand.

I disagree. I think you are confusing faith with deduction and inference, which is always incredibly annoying when people talk about how atheists require faith. No, all we require is evidence!

We can infer from available evidence, for instance, that the Big Bang happened, or that dark matter is likely to exist because of other observations and EVIDENCE that it does. The math involved in the physical universe doesn't quite work out without it, despite the fact that we cannot see it. This is, of course, a theory (an actual, scientific type theory), but a theory that makes sense based on the best, current, available EVIDENCE. Similarly, we once inferred that God existed because we did not have the knowledge, nor the tools with which to examine our world with anywhere close to the fidelity that we are able to today, and now we are able to throw out the God hypothesis in almost every discipline of study.

Faith, conversely, requires that you not have evidence and just believe in something without proof, or upon someone's word. Perhaps I did not take enough salt with your statement, but faith is certainly not the evidence of anything, let alone "the unseen". Evidence of the unseen, would still be evidence from which we can deduce a conclusion. If you have evidence, you are no longer faithful, you are simply informed. And as of now, there is no actual evidence outside of anecdotes like this video, the Bible itself, and emotional appeals - which are easily dismissed as not credible - for a deity.

The problem with God is that He's just plugged into areas where we don't know things, and people take it upon faith that He's real, even in areas where there is more than enough real, tangible evidence to contradict a need for a deity. That is why secularists get so irritated at young Earth creationists and the like, where a preponderance of repeatable, testable, falsifiable, and verifiable evidence shows how enormously wrong they are, yet they refuse to believe the evidence itself, because it goes against their faith in what they believe to be true. A person might have all of the intellect and powers of critical thinking in the world, but when someone takes something on faith, they abandon those powers to plug in a simple answer for whatever their personal reasons.

I don't know your story, or how you feel you've rationalized yourself into belief, whether it be through some sort of Pascal's Wager thing, or what, and I certainly don't think you are an "ignorant, bumbling Neanderthal" but to accept any of an infinite number of god possibilities, let alone the specific Abrahamic God requires faith, and an absence of logic in the absence of real evidence.

Sorry, I went on a rant there...>> ^smooman:


while that may be true, they are not mutually exclusive.
faith is the evidence of things unseen (i know thats gonna mean zilch to you so take that with a grain of salt) and i very seriously doubt you could convincingly question the critical thinking skills of persons such as CS Lewis
i dont think atheists (or non christians for that matter) are godless sinners, devoid of any morality, any more than i would hope that you not think me an ignorant, bumbling, neanderthal because im religious
we have different religious views, however this does not make either of us smarter, more critical, or better than the other because of that fact

Lyrics:


Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
Black and yellow [x4]
Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
Black and yellow [x4]

[Chorus:]
Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
Everything we do, we do it big
Beat up on Paul Krugman, that's nothin




Transcend Mises at twenty, that's stunin
Repping my school when you see me you know everything
Black and yellow [x4]
I put it down for my man Murray, I'm in
Black and yellow [x4]

[Verse 1:]
Black flag, yellow star, them commies scared of it, got my war paint
Soon as I hit the forum, crack keynes, instant faint
Hit the podium once make them liberals shake
State inflates, now the prices soaring
A failed policy, you know the people payed for it
And you know we dig them precious metals
We callin on your horseshit game we balling out on every level
Hear them statists talk but there's nothing you can tell 'em
Fed prints a trillion, got another trillion on their schedule
No love for central planners breaking hearts
No state, free market art

[Chorus:]
Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
Everything we do, we do it big
Beat up on Paul Krugman, that's nothin




Transcend Mises at twenty, that's stunin
Repping my school when you see me you know everything
Black and yellow [x4]
I put it down for my man Murray , I'm in
Black and yellow [x4]

[Verse 2:]
Got a call from Tom Woods, this just in
Bitches love me for my non-aggressive means and ends
Neo-Lockean? Maybe. The market's free, yo.
This ain't the new deal, it's the real deal no joe blow
I'm sipping Four Loko and puffin on the ganja
You social engineers will never stop the marijuana
Statists act like bitches, Tyler Perry
I ball out while Ron Paul does some commentary

[Chorus:]
Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
Everything we do, we do it big
Beat up on Paul Krugman, that's nothin




Transcend Mises at twenty, that's stunin
Repping my school when you see me you know everything
Black and yellow [x4]
I put it down for my man Murray , I'm in
Black and yellow [x4]


[Verse 3:]
Stay praxeological like I'm supposed to do
Broken window fallacy, them Keynesians cant get over you
And our crew look unapproachable
We're with Rothbard, Bitch, we go hard

They wanna fuck with the market, monopolize, constrict, get high, talk shit and that's that Real crap, depression but, they said we wouldn't feel that, they took the blue pill, or must just be on crack

[Chorus:]
Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
(emotional appeals ain't shit, it all comes back to economics, bitch)
Repping my school when you see me you know everything
Black and yellow [x4]
I put it down for my man Murray, I'm in
Black and yellow [x4]
Yeah, uh huh, you know what it is
Everything we do, we do it big
Beat up on Paul Krugman, that's nothin




Transcend Mises at twenty, that's stunin
Repping my school when you see me you know everything
Black and yellow [x4]
I put it down for my man Murray, I'm in
Black and yellow [x4]

tl; dr

>> ^Fletch:

"Sooo... uh, yeah, not really sure what 'fallacy' you had in mind in your angry little rant..."
It's the fallacy called "weak analogy". From twenty-one years ago... week one of Philosophy 101, I believe.
You can make analogy for ANY two things. A "weak analogy" isn't saying the comparisons you are making aren't true. It's saying that the comparisons you are making don't support your original claim, or, that the two things being compared aren't alike in ways relevant to your point.
So, what is shponglefan's claim? Well, if you can wade through his (or her, w/e) spittle, he was defending his position that she should be killed, unless, of course, by "taken out of the gene pool" he simply meant fitted and forced to wear a chastity device of some kind. I'm gonna assume it was the former. His analogy of baby and cat was in defence of that claim. Mentality basically stated he was a psycho for wishing for her death, and shponglefan defended his position by making the analogy. His claim is that babies and cats have either moral or legal equivalency when it comes to meting out punishment (if I see it correctly).
Of course it was a dispicable act. No stable person wantonly hurts animals. But animals, and, specifically in this case, the cat, aren't the same as babies in the eyes of the law. The legal (and moral) realities of society just don't permit executions for animal abuse, as much as you wish it. If that had been a baby, she'd never see daylight again, and the police wouldn't be protecting her, they'd have thrown her in jail where she would be in mortal danger if the story ever permeated the inmate population. If the hypothetical baby had died, she may be facing the death penalty. The fact is that animal abuse is not the same as child abuse. Not by a long shot. Shponglefan pulled the analogy out of his ass to cover his irrational call for her death. It was an emotional appeal that had no bearing to either the facts, or his own premise. It was a WEAK ANALOGY.
Your comparisons of babies and cats, while all true, don't support your claim that shponglefan was making a good point. If you are defending shponglefan's "point" because babies and kittens make similar noises when they are young, and/or because babies and cats are the same size when born, then your first paragraph is also a WEAK ANALOGY. If you weren't offering the analogy as support for your claim, then it's a red herring. Either way, you got it wrong.
And no, I wouldn't hire her.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Comparing a cat to a child is more apt than you might think. Our fascination with cats (dogs too) springs from parental instincts. Pets are roughly the size of human babies. They make noises similar to a young child. They are dependent on our feeding and care and in return they give us love and affection. Our interaction with pets is very much like our interaction with children.
The outrage in this thread seems very instinctual and evolutionary to me. Anyone who would purposely jeopardize a young fragile life in this manner should be cast out for the well being of the tribe. Child murderer = baaaaad. The violent rhetoric in this thread serves as negative reinforcement to this kind of sociopathic behavior.
Would you hire this woman to baby sit your kid? (If you said no, your evolutionary instinct is in good shape.)
Sooo... uh, yeah, not really sure what 'fallacy' you had in mind in your angry little rant, but you got it wrong. shponglefan has made a good point here.

>> ^Fletch:
Your weak analogy of cat and baby is a logical fallacy in itself.>>

"Sooo... uh, yeah, not really sure what 'fallacy' you had in mind in your angry little rant..."

It's the fallacy called "weak analogy". From twenty-one years ago... week one of Philosophy 101, I believe.

You can make analogy for ANY two things. A "weak analogy" isn't saying the comparisons you are making aren't true. It's saying that the comparisons you are making don't support your original claim, or, that the two things being compared aren't alike in ways relevant to your point.

So, what is shponglefan's claim? Well, if you can wade through his (or her, w/e) spittle, he was defending his position that she should be killed, unless, of course, by "taken out of the gene pool" he simply meant fitted and forced to wear a chastity device of some kind. I'm gonna assume it was the former. His analogy of baby and cat was in defence of that claim. Mentality basically stated he was a psycho for wishing for her death, and shponglefan defended his position by making the analogy. His claim is that babies and cats have either moral or legal equivalency when it comes to meting out punishment (if I see it correctly).

Of course it was a dispicable act. No stable person wantonly hurts animals. But animals, and, specifically in this case, the cat, aren't the same as babies in the eyes of the law. The legal (and moral) realities of society just don't permit executions for animal abuse, as much as you wish it. If that had been a baby, she'd never see daylight again, and the police wouldn't be protecting her, they'd have thrown her in jail where she would be in mortal danger if the story ever permeated the inmate population. If the hypothetical baby had died, she may be facing the death penalty. The fact is that animal abuse is not the same as child abuse. Not by a long shot. Shponglefan pulled the analogy out of his ass to cover his irrational call for her death. It was an emotional appeal that had no bearing to either the facts, or his own premise. It was a WEAK ANALOGY.

Your comparisons of babies and cats, while all true, don't support your claim that shponglefan was making a good point. If you are defending shponglefan's "point" because babies and kittens make similar noises when they are young, and/or because babies and cats are the same size when born, then your first paragraph is also a WEAK ANALOGY. If you weren't offering the analogy as support for your claim, then it's a red herring. Either way, you got it wrong.

And no, I wouldn't hire her.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Comparing a cat to a child is more apt than you might think. Our fascination with cats (dogs too) springs from parental instincts. Pets are roughly the size of human babies. They make noises similar to a young child. They are dependent on our feeding and care and in return they give us love and affection. Our interaction with pets is very much like our interaction with children.
The outrage in this thread seems very instinctual and evolutionary to me. Anyone who would purposely jeopardize a young fragile life in this manner should be cast out for the well being of the tribe. Child murderer = baaaaad. The violent rhetoric in this thread serves as negative reinforcement to this kind of sociopathic behavior.
Would you hire this woman to baby sit your kid? (If you said no, your evolutionary instinct is in good shape.)
Sooo... uh, yeah, not really sure what 'fallacy' you had in mind in your angry little rant, but you got it wrong. shponglefan has made a good point here.

>> ^Fletch:
Your weak analogy of cat and baby is a logical fallacy in itself.>>

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I can see where Carville is coming from, I really can. And if I were a Gulf Coast resident, right now I might feel the same way.
However, exactly how much should the President be doing about the oil spill? Should he be holding press conferences every day, saying, "I'm gonna get those motherfuckers!"? He's basically already done that, just without saying "motherfucker." Should he set up house in Louisiana and move his entire staff down there with him and stay until it's all cleaned up? I know those are both extreme examples, but I'm trying to make a point, which is the same one Fareed made: He can't spend so much time on just one major issue.
The last I heard, the U.S. is still at war in two countries, our economy is still shaky and 9.5% of our labor force is still out of work, Iran might be trying to make nuclear weapons, immigration is in desperate need of overhaul, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is perpetually at risk of getting much worse, among other major issues. Should he give less attention to all of those issues just to appear to be doing more about the oil spill?
Fareed's just asking us to be more sensible about this, while Carville is just making emotional appeals. Do you want the president to be sensible, or just emotional? That's what you have to ask yourself.
He's the President of the United States, not just the Gulf Coast.


Well, four or five states have a catastrophe they cannot recover from for years on end, and that is a mighty blow to the United States as a whole. I know you understand this, and I think you make great points. However, living on the Gulf, I can say this--anything Obama or the states do that do help us is a weakness to the entire country. Imagine another calamity somewhere else... Or imagine an invading force (I know, it could never happen...unlike Rome or England...) What would we do? Chickens head cut off? Probably...

The above scenarios are far-fetched, I know. However, they illustrate the point. 9/11 was our best response to a national emergency, but that was one day of pain and hell.

Now, as to two wars and the economy... Was Fareed saying we should handle stuff like that or go to other countries like Indo? And are those other countries directly related to solving our biggest woes?

All and all, well done. I respect your points more than most people's here on the sift. Very balanced.

I can see where Carville is coming from, I really can. And if I were a Gulf Coast resident, right now I might feel the same way.

However, exactly how much should the President be doing about the oil spill? Should he be holding press conferences every day, saying, "I'm gonna get those motherfuckers!"? He's basically already done that, just without saying "motherfucker." Should he set up house in Louisiana and move his entire staff down there with him and stay until it's all cleaned up? I know those are both extreme examples, but I'm trying to make a point, which is the same one Fareed made: He can't spend so much time on just one major issue.

The last I heard, the U.S. is still at war in two countries, our economy is still shaky and 9.5% of our labor force is still out of work, Iran might be trying to make nuclear weapons, immigration is in desperate need of overhaul, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is perpetually at risk of getting much worse, among other major issues. Should he give less attention to all of those issues just to appear to be doing more about the oil spill?

Fareed's just asking us to be more sensible about this, while Carville is just making emotional appeals. Do you want the president to be sensible, or just emotional? That's what you have to ask yourself.

He's the President of the United States, not just the Gulf Coast.

^ Yes, hp. It's interesting to note that theists, once their special pleading, emotional appeals, and circular logic has been exhausted, can think of nothing worse to say about atheism than "it's just another religion."

Logic, evidence, reason...none of those things hold any value to a person with faith. In fact, the god-fearing are as interested in logic, evidence, and reason as the non-theist is interested in emotional appeals, anecdotal evidence, and using subjective experience as a basis for objective claims. Hence, any debate about the existence of god is a wholesale waste of time for all involved, which is why I don't involve myself in them.

If someone wants to limit the debate to something less esoteric like, say, the morality of the bible?...oh, I'm on it like a bonnet.

so as the only girl here amongst all you nerdy virgins, i will leave a comment.

star trek gets my vote for the sheer emotional appeal. (and also my crush on patrick stewart)
i remember getting so excited to watch tng with my dad
and getting history lessons while watching all the old episodes
and the excitement that built in my house before a new star trek movie came out and then the 15 minute ride home in the oldsmobile talking about what a let down it was and then still buying the thing on vhs and watching it 150times over the summer
oh and when we discovered books on tape, well we listened to every star trek book ever every time we got in the car
the sustainability of the star trek series alone
decades and decades and decades of show, movies, books. pure greatness.


im too young to have that grand star wars feel you are all masturbating about. so thats all irrelevant. i am old enough to remember the retarded overhype of the prequels and how much they so so suck. so that kills alot of the appeal

lotr it has plenty of good qualities sure but..nah
1. because im more of a scifi nerd and a no no on the fantasy nerd part
and
2. because the movies droned and dragged toooo much

and matrix. aldkjfaldkjfa;ldkjfomygodihatekeanureevessssoooomuchexceptforbillandtedsexcellentadventureadsf
adsfasdofcourseandonlythefirstonealdkjfa;ldkjfa;ldskjfa;ldksjf;alskdjfadfadfad
hisfaceruinseverythingkjfal;kdjfal;sdkjfals;dkjfa;lsdkjfa;lskdjfalskdjaldkjfald

harry potter i can appreciate these for what they are and i wont say theyre bad. but again im not big on the fantasy.

>> ^iraqssecretsoldiers:
I guess it is not important for people to know about the 350 Secret Soldiers that died in the process of protecting Iraqi's during Voting and the Rebuilding of their Country and Democracy, to include 15,000 new schools, hospitals, water plants, roads, industries, and electrical substations. What ever happened to a picture says a thousand words? What ever happened to listening and hearing all sides? Even the world's best liar knows the truth when he hears and sees it...oh, and it is awful funny that in a bit over an hour the Video Trailer has had close to 80 viewings. You don't speak for everybody...some people do want to know!


Emotional appeal is not going to cut it here. The fact is the video offers nothing. All I see is a slideshow.
I dont gain anything about what you just said from watching it. Is not that there is an intent to conceal a 'perspective' it is just that your presentation of such perspective offers zero.

Qualm, I think your comments could be heavier on reasoned argumentation and humanism (the guys in this video are seeking happiness and the girls are more interested in this than in their other economic options), and lighter on aggressiveness and emotional appeals!