Lol.
I do get to say what constitutes American values in my opinion, an opinion informed by civics class, something it seems most people were deprived of. Those values are honesty, fairness, and equality under the law.....honoring one's word/agreements, helping the needy, standing up for right not just maximum profit internationally. These are historically the values America held dear....but no longer, at least not officially.

Fox does not honor those values, it rarely gives them lip service and never more.

Well, the boy cried wolf 1000 times this year, and twice there were wolves, you go ahead and drop everything and keep running, pitchfork in hand every time he cries out, I quit listening to him the second time there was no wolf, only a boy laughing at us. Call me emotional and dismissive, I disagree but that's fine. You don't want to know what I think about you and that boy.

Good reporters would not associate with those zealous, hyper biased, hypocritical blatant propagandists, so no, there aren't good reporters there. Maybe some who occasionally tell some truths, that's not enough by far to be "good", and as a network they've squandered any chance they had for redemption as a legitimate news organization with zeal and glee repeatedly.

Yeah.....you know me so well. I don't watch any Trump bashing sessions, they were boring before he was elected. I haven't had my tv on CNN in years, not that they're solely Trump bashing sessions, but they do host some.
You seem to think any news not stroking his ego is a bashing session, quoting him, out of bounds bashing, discussing his new policies, out of bounds emotionality, discussing his recent court losses, out of bounds schadenfreude, pointing out constant stream of blatant self serving lies, out of bounds emotional garbage. Only positive spin is real news...Fox is real news with real reporters, not >80% hyper biased hosts spouting opinion as fact. No thanks....Homie don't play dat.

No, a police dog is a tool.

Humans are more valuable than animals.

But I must say, you make an incredible number of assumptions in your thinking.
It just so happens that in less than an hour I must take my cat to the vet to be euthanized and it's about all I can do to keep my composure.

Any officer who loses a dog to a criminal act is devastated, but the officer still realizes that people are more important than animals.

You constantly demonstrate your knee-jerk emotionalism and animus to a difficult job that you would undoubtedly be unable to do.

Now to end this waste of time.

Sure. Words have meaning and power. Hardly ever is the word used in it's proper context in recent vernacular or history though. People are being programmed to be stupider with each passing generation in their use and abuse of language. 'Just' is used nowadays as a filler word or as an excuse in defense of someone's inability or unwillingness to express honestly, anything at all. In it's adverb form ("Exactly, that's it!' or, 'the meaning being quite clear') or the adjective ('based upon or behaving according to what is morally right and fair'), the meaning is 'quite clear.'

Here for example, in Dag's comment (resounding best in one's mind when imagined in the voice of a 14-year-old teenaged girl from Beverly Hills), the word takes on a relatively banal and pointless connotation as well as reflecting in this case of a pompous air as well as a laziness of thought with little or no meaning, whatsoever.

Only folks that understand already and know Dag to lean towards the unrealistic, romantic, idealist camp with regard to the condition of the planet's coveted and rampantly abused resources and air-quality relative to climate, would 'get the jyst' as it were.

Love ya Dagmar, I simply can't stand the word 'just' being thrown about to satisfy one's ego or unbridled emotionalism. Stop buying plastic bullshit and driving, etc. etc., and don't cast a vote for empirical cunts and lovers of empire and their own if you're that passionate, or shut the fuck up about it already, hippie-boy

By the way, if you haven't guessed already, I own a POS used Cadillac, running great, lotta power, sexy-ish, plush and roomy inside, chicks and brothers dig my roll, but hard as fuck by design ("Fuck You, General Motors!") to find new parts for.

Freudian click, chicco.
and eric, I agree I like the man's schtick.
'A shtick (Yiddish: שטיק) (or schtick) is a comic theme or gimmick.'

I am the one of the only sifters on douche-patrol here, as I am often find myself under the threat of personal attacks and lame motherfucking reprisals when I freely state my opinions in the land of damaged-goods emotionalism and predictable histrionics.

No arekin, what you are watching is a standard hack journalism piece form an news org notorious for such tripe-"Poppy Harlow" here (pretentious and douchey female-reporter name), is attempting to infuse the story with some heart-wrenching emotionalism and grave tone..
It's a rape honey, cut to the sentencing segment as you spin the tale of these poor athletes with their lives ahead of them who double-teamed someone without her consent. Get a shot of the big, blubbering one there as his counsel consoles him!

Where's more Waldo in this unprofessional ballad of useless information about these douchebag rapists? They came from a troubled family...blah blah blah.."father a former alcoholic??"- Uhh, what the fuck does that even mean?!

Yet another time-filler offered-up from CNN, their standard fare, an over-dramatized example of developmental-disability in our distracted society. This is not journalism, is fucking Maury Povich and people throwing chairs at they baby-daddys.

Poppy, thank you for edifying us with that useless wind-session. Please get a job that assists in the evolution of the human condition...like on a crabbing boat in Nova Scotia!

Yes, Hitchens tried to cloak himself in the vast and endless void of unbelief, yet Lane quickly cornered him and he was forced to admit that he did not in fact believe God exists, which is the assertion of atheism, regardless of how you try to game the definition. Did you miss that part? Of course he didn't have any arguments for this assertion. I think Hitchens fell far short of even the most objective measure of success here.

Why did I show this part? Because I thought it would be interesting to people and spur a dialogue. I posted a link to the entire debate, which is well wortth watching..

In the debate Craig posits 5 main arguments as to why Theism is a better explanation for reality than atheism. He challenged Hitchens to come up with an argument as to why atheism was a better explanation, which he didn't. Neither did Hitchens seriously challenge any of Lanes main assertions, in fact he left a few completely untouched. Hitchens offered a lot of emotionalism and extended diatribes, even at one point trashing Mother Teresa, but not much else. He simply was completely unprepared for this debate. Philosophy doesn't seem to be his strong point.

>> ^MaxWilder:
I'm confused as to why you would post this one segment of a larger debate if the larger debate is available.
I'm also confused as to why you would think Hitchens "badly loses". Do you mean in this particular interchange? Because I see nothing of the sort.
It seems to me this comes back to the debate from the previously posted video about definition of terms. Because right from the start the theist in this argument starts using the term atheist incorrectly and Hitchens wastes time and brain power trying to correct him. This is a dumb way to engage in debate or discussion.
Again I'm going to ask that since you are not an atheist, and not an agnostic, that you stop insisting that you know how everybody should use those words.
Among the people who label themselves as atheist, the vast majority agree that this simply means we are not convinced that any particular religion is true. Many of us are still open to evidence if some were to be presented, which is why we get into these discussions with theists. We use the term atheist in the manner of a- meaning "not", and -theist, meaning a follower of a religion.
I understand that this is not the way you have heard the term atheist used, but that does not make us wrong. We are trying to spread the correct usage of the term. And if you have any intention of continuing to have discussions with non-believers, I strongly recommend that you accept the way we use the word. It's not a difficult transition to make. It simply means non-religious.
Perhaps you miss using that straw-man argument about atheism requiring faith? If so, let it go. That argument never did anything except make theists snicker and feel superior. It's empty. It's a waste of time. Move on.

There is nothing in these articles about men acting logical and going into problem-solving mode, rather that they have a more activated fight or flight response and women a more empathetic response. Read the article and you will see that you are going way too far in your conclusions (http://www.cfn.upenn.edu/perfusion/stress.pdf).

A quote from the article:
"Similarly, the present finding of greater prefrontal and limbic activation in males and females respectively should not be implicated with the sex stereotype in lay culture for the “emotional women” and “rational men”. As suggested by several studies, the gender difference in emotionality per se may be an ill-posed question (Barrett et al., 1998; Fischer, 1993)." (p. 18, Wang, et al, unknown year).

The stress test was also counting backwards from 1600 by subtracting 13. Not very similar to sitting in a car when a tornado comes. As a bonus there were no differences in performance between women and men, meaning men did not perform better! Don't quote popular science bro. Go straight to the source

That said there are obvious differences in our brains, but we do not know enough yet to claim what you do. >> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^LarsaruS:
My really long post...

Women of the sift. Does this offend you more or less than Westy's comment. Vote now, cos I think it might be close.

I was not out to put down females and if my comment came across like that then I was not clear enough, my bad.
I was simply talking about the biological differences in how males and females think, see links (first 3 things I found but there is a lot of research on this subject being done), due to being different, biologically, and having evolved with different pressures acting on us. It is not strange that we think differently and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Why do males go into "problem solving mode" and not "feeling mode" IMO? For example when a sabre toothed tiger pounces you you have to act rationally and solve the problem, if you cower in fear you get eaten. Evolution favoured the clearheaded, fast thinking and problem solving minds of the male hunters over the ones who were slower on the uptake or felt first and acted second.
Different roles (think hunter/gatherer times) --> Different brains --> Different thought patterns.
Otherwise every single person in the world would think exactly the same way.
http://www.newhorizons.org/neuro/diamond_male_female.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051201165615.htm (2005)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/0403-men_are_from_mars.htm (2008)
(even has a video but I can't seem to embed stuff, oh well)

The over-the-top sappy emotionalism completely ruins these shows for me. Good act, though.

What kills me about this. It's a serious issue and is a massive global concern. There is a segment of society that 100% believes it's all some kind of left-wing conspiracy to... Well to do what exactly i don't know. Maybe just lying for the sake of lying... When you have science and all the evidence on your side. Why would you 'emotionalize' In the minds of huge segments of society all over the world you just validate this conspiarcy nonsense. Prove me right QM.

It's torture. End of discussion how about it?? The subject should have been concluded 823,467 video submissions ago, then perhaps,
"Move the hell on."

Funny how with 21 comment upvotes for the "Hannity" comment one can see aaaaallll the folks who have wasted time listening to the man. He has, thank the gods, still a place on the air-waves to continue to sell ad time with his blubbering. He's a weasel on par with most politicians and its fortunate we still have not gone the way of censorship with am/fm talk radio-Freedom of speech is really no freedom at all now days, however, bondage be evidenced here by the willingness of the common man to grab a torch and head to the castle. Any good regime change needs help from self-righteous, fervent, automatons.

Book burning in the 21st century present day amounts to shutting down any speech that offends anyone in any way. NWO is full of those ready to sacrifice true freedoms. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to read a teleprompter-masses are swayed with reason sacrificed on the altar of emotionalism.

I don't know the man, don't know his works, but from this trailer, I would say what he says has little basis in reality.

This trailer is the worst sort of emotionalism, sensationalism and just plain boulderdash. And being that it's presenting the film, I'd say the film, and therefore the person are similar.

If you're using Tony Fricken Robbins as any sort of spokesman for yourself in a trailer, you KNOW you're full of shit. Come on.

Drivel.

Sensationalist drivel

>> ^quantumushroom:
By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.

I do love that assertion about the human heart, stated as
fact... makes little to no sense, but let's continue.

Let me rephrase, because I want this to be crystal clear: the
atheist, by default, has declared him or herself to be the
sole judge of what is right and what is wrong, and no other
standards other than their whims or how they're feeling at any
given moment defines morality, goodness, evil, etc.

Even if they do not do so, atheists still must believe that
they are free to pick and choose which laws to obey, the
same exact way those hypocritical religious people pick and
choose which parts of their religion they will follow.

Atheists' highest authority is...themselves.



Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.

No, completely missing the point. People who blindly follow
the bible do so with no reason. They don't stop and think
"Hmmm, is it wrong to hate gay people? On what grounds am I
actually hating them?".

Who is to say you're not blindly following the people
declaring that, 'Christians all hate gays?'

Whereas when you're an atheist you base your morals and are
open to discourse, rather than the blanket 'nope, not talking
about it, the bible says it... end of story'. Trying to
suggest that this is somehow hiding emotionality is bullshit,
emotions can come into said discourse just as much, in fact
moreso than in religion, which teaches to SUBDUE your
emotions, IGNORE your feelings... if you're a man and you feel
love for another man... well, that's wrong buddy, the bible
says so.

The Bible has many passages about slavery, yet it was the
political movements of religious people the world over that
freed the slaves. To blanket-condemn the Bible or even the Quran seems a tad harsher even than the false assertion that all Christians must hate gays.

I understand atheists' contempt for the blind obedience of
fundamentalists, but if you're declaring all religion as evil
because of one segment of an infinite human endeavor, I'd
suggest you're being a tad closed-minded.



I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with
certainty that, "There is no God." My opinion.

STOP DOING THAT! Gah, I hate that fr*cken bullshit of
saying 'you can't be certain there's no god'... WE DON'T SAY
THERE'S NO GOD. We're saying there is no evidence to suggest
there is one, so to spend every sunday worshiping something
that by all accounts doesn't exist seems a bit silly. We're
happy to be shown to be wrong by SOME SORT of evidence... ANY
would be nice. Stop saying that we are saying for certain that
there is no god. We are saying that we THINK there's no god,
but those with an open mind are happy to accept further
evidence on the matter.

I understand what you're saying, yet the definition of an
atheism is "The doctrine or belief that there is no God" and
"Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings". I
could be wrong, but you have stated in other words that
atheism is "The doctrine or belief that there is no
God...until proven otherwise."


Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA,
usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.

OK, firstly... Atheists are hardly a 'tiny minority', you
may wish to think so, but sorry, it ain't true. First link off
google on the matter 16% are non religious. That's not a 'tiny
minority' by any stretch of any imagination. Then, if we look
at the wikipedia entry we can see that just getting any sort
of number is fraught with problems in classification, self
identification etc.

I agree it's hard to quantify atheists. You could've just
said, "China makes up one-quarter of the world's people and
they're atheist."

THEN secondly... it's HARDLY that anyone is trying to
eliminate all traces of religion from a country... it's a case
of everyone is perfectly free to believe what they want... BUT
when ONE religion starts enforcing IT'S beliefs on the
populous via government THEN things are wrong. Passing law
based on the bible, making Creationism be taught in science is
all absolute bullshit and SHOULD be stopped. But that in no
way is trying to suggest that people can't go to church, be
religious, pray or whatever and do so without fear. It's the
religious folk who are making those without religion feel
fearful because of the way they are being treated.

You bring up many issues here, most of them political. The
ACLU is trying their damnedest to remove all traces of
religious expression from public life. Not all atheists are in
the ACLU, but there are zero I know of protesting the ACLU's
bullying either. Government schools are screwed from all
sides. Not to make light of your plight, but everyone claims
to be persecuted these days.

As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad
consequences except when discovered by others.

This is such tripe. What you're saying is that religious
people are only good because they fear for the repercussions
of a vengeful god. The way I live my life is that I don't do
bad things because I wouldn't like those things done to me, so
why should I inflict them on someone else. To me that's
FAIR... if the only reason you're 'good' is due to fear of
repercussions, then really... you're not good at all.

But what happens when you meet an atheist who thinks what's FAIR isn't what YOU think is FAIR. There's no ultimate authority, even something as open-ended as the golden rule may not apply.

As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.

Um... yep. I see no issue here.

Then why be "good?" Why punish evildoers at all?

I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.

Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than
anyone else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass
"conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil
governments.

I don't think atheism is an instant trip to being happier
either, never said it was. I also don't think that you are
necessarily unhappy if you're religious. I know plenty of
lovely religious people... I have no issue with them being
religious, I go to their religious ceremonies, quite like
their pastor in fact... they don't try to convert me, and I
don't try to convert them... everyone is happy.

And how many of those lovely religious people would be upset
by your approval/endorsement of this obnoxious video? Some might get "the joke" but then others may not...

Geeze... trying to suggest that 'evil' governments have
converted people to atheism... man... firstly where the hell
does that come from, and secondly don't even start on that
unless you want to defend the crusades and violent
missionaries 'converting' savages to Christianity... don't
even go there, that's just nuts...

Communism makes the state the highest authority, therefore any
and all religious belief and expression was banned in those countries by human monsters, inflicted a nightmare on their own people. These dictators were atheist NOT because they wanted to usher in an Age of Reason but to
maintain their power.

The Crusades were an anomaly compared to the 100 million murdered worldwide by communism.

And no, I'm not saying all atheists are commies, but when one form of "control" like religion dies, another fills the void. Maybe we should all just honor each others' delusions instead.

>> ^quantumushroom:
By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.


I do love that assertion about the human heart, stated as fact... makes little to no sense, but let's continue.

Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.

No, completely missing the point. People who blindly follow the bible do so with no reason. They don't stop and think "Hmmm, is it wrong to hate gay people? On what grounds am I actually hating them?". Whereas when you're an atheist you base your morals and are open to discourse, rather than the blanket 'nope, not talking about it, the bible says it... end of story'. Trying to suggest that this is somehow hiding emotionality is bullshit, emotions can come into said discourse just as much, in fact moreso than in religion, which teaches to SUBDUE your emotions, IGNORE your feelings... if you're a man and you feel love for another man... well, that's wrong buddy, the bible says so.



I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with certainty that,
"There is no God." My opinion.

STOP DOING THAT! Gah, I hate that fr*cken bullshit of saying 'you can't be certain there's no god'... WE DON'T SAY THERE'S NO GOD. We're saying there is no evidence to suggest there is one, so to spend every sunday worshiping something that by all accounts doesn't exist seems a bit silly. We're happy to be shown to be wrong by SOME SORT of evidence... ANY would be nice. Stop saying that we are saying for certain that there is no god. We are saying that we THINK there's no god, but those with an open mind are happy to accept further evidence on the matter.

Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA, usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.

OK, firstly... Atheists are hardly a 'tiny minority', you may wish to think so, but sorry, it ain't true. First link off google on the matter 16% are non religious. That's not a 'tiny minority' by any stretch of any imagination. Then, if we look at the wikipedia entry we can see that just getting any sort of number is fraught with problems in classification, self identification etc.

THEN secondly... it's HARDLY that anyone is trying to eliminate all traces of religion from a country... it's a case of everyone is perfectly free to believe what they want... BUT when ONE religion starts enforcing IT'S beliefs on the populous via government THEN things are wrong. Passing law based on the bible, making Creationism be taught in science is all absolute bullshit and SHOULD be stopped. But that in no way is trying to suggest that people can't go to church, be religious, pray or whatever and do so without fear. It's the religious folk who are making those without religion feel fearful because of the way they are being treated.

As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad consequences except when discovered by others.
This is such tripe. What you're saying is that religious people are only good because they fear for the repercussions of a vengeful god. The way I live my life is that I don't do bad things because I wouldn't like those things done to me, so why should I inflict them on someone else. To me that's FAIR... if the only reason you're 'good' is due to fear of repercussions, then really... you're not good at all.

As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.
Um... yep. I see no issue here.

I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.
Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than anyone
else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass "conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil governments.

I don't think atheism is an instant trip to being happier either, never said it was. I also don't think that you are necessarily unhappy if you're religious. I know plenty of lovely religious people... I have no issue with them being religious, I go to their religious ceremonies, quite like their pastor in fact... they don't try to convert me, and I don't try to convert them... everyone is happy.

Geeze... trying to suggest that 'evil' governments have converted people to atheism... man... firstly where the hell does that come from, and secondly don't even start on that unless you want to defend the crusades and violent missionaries 'converting' savages to Christianity... don't even go there, that's just nuts...

Politics as usual, rhetoric, emotionalism, pep-rally consciousness, pan shots to prominent celebrities teary-eyed, iconic images designed to send meaning to the trunk of the jalopy.......Issues seemingly important and preeminent (health care,race, gender, etc) are lauded as all-important, while the agendas behind the scenes click along as usual, to keep the corporate power structure intact, and the money flowing to the upper tier of society, as it always has.....

The hope of Obama?? The change??? What will change is nothing but a face.......Ya lemmings, educate yourselves-You can start by getting rid of this defective programming apparatus-we can begin this "Hope for Change", by taking away the power and influence these fucks have over the gullible and easily led.....STOP WATCHING THEIR PROGRAMMING. PROGRAM YOUR OWN MIND FOLKS-and fuck these rich folks, controlled by the ultra-rich.....

Obama needs to be stripped of all his clothing and paraded through the streets on a donkey.....like Jesus did....and Jesus was Black, too!!!