Should a parent by liable for giving birth to a child that turns out to be a murderer? That video is awful, but humans aren't camel spiders..they don't have to attack and hurt eachother. They know by their conscience what is correct behavior and have a choice to do good or not.

Before sin entered the world, there weren't any natural disasters or diseases. When the creation fell, all of those things came with it. In the last days, the increase of natural disasters and plagues and such are directly correlated to the increase in sin. It is one of the signs of the last days when there start to be a greater than normal amount of them.

I'm not sure what you mean by your example. That just demonstrates the inequity of mankind, and its not as if anyone is unreachable by God. Those children aren't forever doomed. In any case, the situation on Earth would be far different if people actually followed the rules. People think about the law in terms of punishment but it is there to moderate our behavior. To compel us to act according to our better natures. If people followed what Jesus taught there simply wouldn't be any inequity in this world.


>> ^acidSpine:
Check out this awful fucking video
Two-camel-spiders-fight-to-the-DEATH
Can It be said that the person who put those two things in that box bears no responsibility for the terrible events that follow?
One other thing the free will argument for evil fails to address is evil humans couldn't possibly be responsible for ie. Earthquakes and tsunamis. How about smallpox and malaria were they really necessary?
As for original sin, what a load of herpes. Just say you go nuts one day and shoot a bunch of Amish and yourself. So state just takes all your kids and their kids and locks them up in a prison full of the children of other criminals whereupon they remain forever including all the babies born inside.
For a god that can "only do what is logically possible" he sure makes a lot of irrational decisions

Check out this awful fucking video
Two-camel-spiders-fight-to-the-DEATH

Can It be said that the person who put those two things in that box bears no responsibility for the terrible events that follow?

One other thing the free will argument for evil fails to address is evil humans couldn't possibly be responsible for ie. Earthquakes and tsunamis. How about smallpox and malaria were they really necessary?

As for original sin, what a load of herpes. Just say you go nuts one day and shoot a bunch of Amish and yourself. So state just takes all your kids and their kids and locks them up in a prison full of the children of other criminals whereupon they remain forever including all the babies born inside.

For a god that can "only do what is logically possible" he sure makes a lot of irrational decisions

>> ^bcglorf: It seems silly, the link is to the page you are reading now!
Here's the quotes for the benefit of others so there's no risk of anyone falling for your foolishness.
1. I claimed You dismiss everything from CNN, BBC and citizen journalism all as pro American fabrications.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Unbiased? So no mainstream news media then? Which covers the CNN and BBC claim.
Of course they're blaming Assad, that's what foreign-funded activists are paid to say. Which covers the citizen journalism side.
2.I claimed You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Al Jazeera is state owned by Qatar, the same government sending weapons to Libya's Benghazi rebels (al-Qeada) Seems that Al Jazeera is sinful by association with Qatar, which is supporting the Benghazi rebels like a good American puppet. For those new to this, the Al Qaeda claim is not only taking Gadhafi at his word, it is also stated in the belief that America or it's evil puppet masters support Al Qaeda, making Qatar's support of Al Qaeda proof it's all still part of the conspiracy.
Suffice it to say, you've soundly rejected Al Jazeera as biased against the Syrian public and part of some foreign sourced insurrection there.
3.My last claim was You ACCEPT everything from Bashir Al-Assad's regime's media outlets as truth.
You've said the following to support this claim:
Well to be fair, I'm pretty sure they kicked out all foreigners. Can't really blame them when Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.
And the best gem of them all:
The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.
All you seem to know is that Assad is the one making sure everyone is silenced and that no information gets out. How convenient you can then throw up your hands and say we just don't know who is killing who.
The truth is survivors and defectors that escape are all telling the same story, Assad's men are killing unarmed civilians and are shooting any soldiers refusing to fire on the unarmed civilians as well.




I didn't dismiss anything. Earlier in the thread, I made a dig at mainstream media in general when ali wanted an "unbiased" source. I've posted links from Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, so you're not making any fucking sense.
And as far as "Assad's regime's media outlets", I have no idea what you're talking about.

In wars and armed conflicts you never know all the facts. You shouldn't accept any report from any news source at face value unless you can corroborate it with other sources. Even then you're likely only getting part of the truth. Al Jazerra repeatably makes disclaimers in this video that they don't know the facts.

Given the circumstances and Assad's short history, I don't buy that he's ordering his army to open fire on civilians. Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin and given the fact that Qatar is openly supporting NATO in Libya, they are clearly going to be biased when reporting on Syria. There's little credibility to anything they choose to broadcast on the subject.

There was a story about a month ago or so, where the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed. Did unarmed civilians do that? I also remember first hearing about civilians being killed by snipers that were part of Assad's "secret police". So I guess it could be Assad's men, but why would he use covert police AND the military? Doesn't make any sense. The more likely scenario is that foreign agents dressed as Assad's security force are opening fire on civilians. They're probably even doing it behind the backs of the activists they recruited and organized to protest.

But even if it is Assad that's gunning down civilians, it's not our fight. It's an internal conflict. Aiding one side or the other only brings about wider conflict with more fighting and more death.

Are these also Assad's forces shooting indiscriminately from inside this car?

clearly the better use for a rail gun such as this is to shrink it down (enough that it is handheld) and then hide it in an arena where you can force a group of people to fight to the death.

>> ^BoneRemake:

ya know. because you put +terrible in the channels, I wont downvote it. finicky mind I have.
Yes this song is horribly terrible, as I feel about the band in general @!

but it is your right to upload it, and I will fight to the death to protect that right !!!


Why that's mighty neighbourly of you... \= |

ya know. because you put +terrible in the channels, I wont downvote it. finicky mind I have.

Yes this song is horribly terrible, as I feel about the band in general @!


but it is your right to upload it, and I will fight to the death to protect that right !!!

I agree with him, but I hate him... I hate all three of them. All this pointless yapping back and forth. Can't these pussies just fight to the death and then shut up? Think of the bandwidth that could be saved.

>> ^NetRunner:

Like I said over on the other vid I posted on this, I understand Obama's reluctance.
If he gets involved, it elevates Walker, hardens Walker's resolve to fight to the death, and potentially shifts the political dynamic from "Walker's fucking over school teachers" to "Walker's standing up to President Obama".
I say that the sheer imagery of Obama walking amongst the protesters with a sign would overwhelm everything else, especially if he camps out with the protesters in the WI statehouse overnight.
Not sure how the Secret Service would feel about something like that, but surely that's a solvable problem.


It's not restricted to only one state though, so if he gets his "comfortable pair of shoes" on and visits the multiple states where this is or is going to be an issue, he won't give Walker any firepower.

Regardless, he's not avoiding it for the reason you mention, he's doing it because he's on Walker's side... He's a shill.

Like I said over on the other vid I posted on this, I understand Obama's reluctance.

If he gets involved, it elevates Walker, hardens Walker's resolve to fight to the death, and potentially shifts the political dynamic from "Walker's fucking over school teachers" to "Walker's standing up to President Obama".

I say that the sheer imagery of Obama walking amongst the protesters with a sign would overwhelm everything else, especially if he camps out with the protesters in the WI statehouse overnight.

Not sure how the Secret Service would feel about something like that, but surely that's a solvable problem.

The music makes it sound like they're fighting to the death. I've seen greater violence at WalMart during the holidays. And why do they have the Gladiator lady singing at the end? Sigh.

>> ^TheFreak:

>> ^Gallowflak:
And that's why I'm a transhumanist absurdist.

No kidding...I'm a post-humanist rationalist. I guess you and I must fight to the death now.


Bring your finest robot fists to the Parthenon.

>> ^Gallowflak:
And that's why I'm a transhumanist absurdist.


No kidding...I'm a post-humanist rationalist. I guess you and I must fight to the death now.

Glenn Beck Vs Alex Jones

If it's a fight to the death, I hope it's a tie.

At one point in the US, it was reasonable to hear someone say something along the lines of "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."

Now we've got Newt Gingrich et al throwing every soundbite they can muster at this. It is "hallowed ground". Muslims are universally fundamentalists and extremists. They just want to train more terrorists. We can't trust them. It would be like holding a neo-nazi rally next to the holocaust museum.

At one point Americans had the integrity to refrain from trying to quash any opinion, belief, or statement contrary to their own. We had the balls to stand up for freedom of speech, religion, and assembly even when they stood for something we disagreed with. Now we've got Newt Gingrich, who if given the chance to be "emperor for a day" of the USA would apparently spend his day wiping his ass with the constitution and causing more harm to the key tenets of our country than 1,000 Osama Bin Laden's could ever manage.

However I'll stand up and say that I'm glad Newt et al are saying these things, and glad they have the right to do so, because otherwise people might not have such abundant direct evidence of what a bunch of fascist, constitution-undermining dirtbags they are.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:

Downvote for content, not for Stonebreaker.


Agreed. Not a fan of glorifying violence against animals (even if perpetrated by other animals) for entertainment purposes. Same reason I downvote any videos that pit two animals against each other in a fight to the death just to see who'll win.