*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Top-20-5-Second-Films-Part-2
*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Top-20-Five-Second-Films

nice i enjoyed the five seconds of dyno time they permitted us

If you removed the Harlem shake bit, just the last five seconds would have made an excellent Five Second Film.

First five seconds: "This is a snuff film isn't it?"

Last thirty seconds: "Hmm... hard to tell. Let's count the idiots and compare it to the start."

"Had this event been real, Joey would have been killed in the first five seconds." (emphasize grave, confindent tone)

Uhhh, not necessarily you leading, divisive talking head?!!
Joey may have done a variety of other things besides FUCKING DYING!?

You wonder why I think the news is toxic to it's core??? Semantics be-damned and fuck me for going to college(Communications, R/TV)!!

My justification is simply that it has a good track record. If you are really trying to say that I am unreasonable to assume that all physical laws will remain more or less unchanged for the next five seconds then you demonstrate your own stupidity.

The main problem with your justification is that it is logically fallacious. You're still using circular reasoning. Your evidence that the future will be like the past is the past. Is it correct reasoning to use logical fallacies?

You haven't demonstrated that we need to know anything with absolute certainty. Is there any practical value to it?

Can you show me one instance where knowing that something has been the case in every conceivable instance since the dawn of time is just too vague for you?

Things seem to hum along just fine under the crazy assumption that breathing in and out is the way to go.

Well, the thing is, we live in a world of certainty, not uncertainty. What this means is that you are living a double life of sorts. You are uncertain about everything in theory, but of course you never live that way in practice; you expect everything to continue as it has from the beginning of the Creation. You expect that when you jump up you will come back down again. You expect when you say the words "juniper tree" that the sound waves will carry those words to the other persons ear, and they, using universal rules of logic, will comprehend what you're talking about. You are living according to the ideals of a Christian worldview, but simultaneously denying it with your atheism.

Did you know, for instance, that the idea in science of nature being lawfully ordered is a Christian one? It was supposed by 12 century Christians who believed that the Universe was governed by Gods laws, and that we could suss out these universal laws by investigating secondary causes. Here is some of the history of all of that:

http://bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm#introduction

So this world of certainty we live in is based in no small way off of Christian ideals and principles. You could not actually justify any of it unless you invoke an omnipotent God who created and maintains all of these things, and will continue to do so. So, the argument is the impossibility of the contrary, which is not only a denial of the world of certainty that we live in, but also the loss of any basis for rational thought.

My justification is simply that it has a good track record. If you are really trying to say that I am unreasonable to assume that all physical laws will remain more or less unchanged for the next five seconds then you demonstrate your own stupidity.

You haven't demonstrated that we need to know anything with absolute certainty. Is there any practical value to it?

Can you show me one instance where knowing that something has been the case in every conceivable instance since the dawn of time is just too vague for you?

Things seem to hum along just fine under the crazy assumption that breathing in and out is the way to go.

Our love life is a five second film.
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
how comes you're dissatisfied?
In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
ಠ_ಠ

In reply to this comment by Fantomas:
In reply to this comment by PlayhousePals:
In reply to this comment by Fantomas:
This video is seven minutes and twenty five seconds long, and thus erroneously named.

That is all.


HAHAHAHAHA!! Right you ARE! =oD
It does mean we get almost 50% more music than we were promised!


So much for leaving them wanting more! =oD

In reply to this comment by Fantomas:
This video is seven minutes and twenty five seconds long, and thus erroneously named.

That is all.


HAHAHAHAHA!! Right you ARE! =oD

This video is seven minutes and twenty five seconds long, and thus erroneously named.

That is all.

Reminds me of when some stupid fuck ran a stop sign and totaled my car. That truck could have waited five seconds, and everything would have been fine. That dude on the ground probably didn't fully realize what just happened either. I'm sure when he woke up the next day though, he realized how lucky he was to be alive.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's a bit different with online video, because you're clicking on something for instant gratification. Also, if it's a minute long video - the ratio of commercial to content is not that different from TV.>> ^Sarzy:

You think five seconds is bad? What about TV? Assuming you actually watch the ads, there's about 8 minutes of ads for every 30 minutes of programming. That's almost 1/3rd ads. The cumulative wasted manhours there are pretty staggering.

You think five seconds is bad? What about TV? Assuming you actually watch the ads, there's about 8 minutes of ads for every 30 minutes of programming. That's almost 1/3rd ads. The cumulative wasted manhours there are pretty staggering.