Your insistence that everybody believe that there is a God, as you believe, is hinting at a lack of your own faith. You are compelled to force others to agree with your viewpoints because deep inside, you aren't so sure.

I preach the gospel because I am commanded by the Lord to do. I also do so because I am concerned about peoples eternal salvation and don't want to see anyone go to hell. I am warning people that they will face the judgement of God and to repent. I can tell you honestly that you are projecting your skepticism on to me, because I used to be an agnostic materialist and very skeptical. God has provided enough evidence to me of His existence to assauge that skepticism. I contend for the faith for a number of reasons, but doubt isn't one of them.

Hey, Hitler wasn't the only person manning all of those concentration camps. You're telling me all of those people were atheists?

The nazis were social darwinists. The whole idea of a master race was based on the idea of survival of the fittest.

Let's say you and I know somebody who is an atheist. We both agree he's a great guy, and even if we don't agree with him about everything, he's never said or done anything that would indicate that he was some kind of threat or detriment to our society. He has his belief, you have yours, I have mine.

So why this insistence of yours to convince him that he's wrong and you're right?

Why is it so necessary that his conscience be "God Given?"

Why keep forcing your belief upon him?

No one can forced to believe in God. I wouldn't advocate that anyone be forced to believe what I believe. You can only be saved by a confession of faith which comes by the conviction of the Holy Spirit. It isn't my work, it is Gods work.

Don't be fooled either..atheists these days are heavily evangelizing. Many of them have very indepth questions about the Christian faith which I answer through my knowledge of apologetics. It is an ongoing thing and there is no shortage of debate or interest on this question.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What is the greater good and how do you determine it? If someone disagrees, how do you determine who is right? To note, I don't consider someone who doesn't believe in God to be immoral. I believe that everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong.

Your insistence that everybody believe that there is a God, as you believe, is hinting at a lack of your own faith. You are compelled to force others to agree with your viewpoints because deep inside, you aren't so sure.
Hey, Hitler wasn't the only person manning all of those concentration camps. You're telling me all of those people were atheists?
Let's say you and I know somebody who is an atheist. We both agree he's a great guy, and even if we don't agree with him about everything, he's never said or done anything that would indicate that he was some kind of threat or detriment to our society. He has his belief, you have yours, I have mine.
So why this insistence of yours to convince him that he's wrong and you're right?
Why is it so necessary that his conscience be "God Given?"
Why keep forcing your belief upon him?


>> ^rougy:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What is the greater good and how do you determine it? If someone disagrees, how do you determine who is right? To note, I don't consider someone who doesn't believe in God to be immoral. I believe that everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong.

Your insistence that everybody believe that there is a God, as you believe, is hinting at a lack of your own faith. You are compelled to force others to agree with your viewpoints because deep inside, you aren't so sure.
Hey, Hitler wasn't the only person manning all of those concentration camps. You're telling me all of those people were atheists?
Let's say you and I know somebody who is an atheist. We both agree he's a great guy, and even if we don't agree with him about everything, he's never said or done anything that would indicate that he was some kind of threat or detriment to our society. He has his belief, you have yours, I have mine.
So why this insistence of yours to convince him that he's wrong and you're right?
Why is it so necessary that his conscience be "God Given?"
Why keep forcing your belief upon him?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Previous comments notwithstanding, I actually believe that Ron Paul is a stand-up guy who says what he sees as the truth--and won't change what he says because of a poll. I could really get behind him if he would just embrace a rational, twenty-first century fiscal policy.


Problem Boise, who has had a sound fiscal policy?

We have how much in debt, 20 trillion? 30? 50? I don't know because they have hidden debt so well that it scares the fuck out of me. The fed could borrow and loan unlimited amounts, which is part of what we would owe...not to mention liabilities and such... Plus rotten infrastructure, half-assed programs that accomplish little, and so much more...

Is RP's policies worse than what has happened? I doubt it... But we will elect the same guys, just with different faces, who do this every time; because we vote on platform, not on actual people.

Here is a saying I made the other day while daydreaming about becoming a tyrant, I mean Congressman. "If you vote for an honest man you won't get everything you want. But if you vote for a liar you get what you deserve."

@NetRunner

You said,
"And with the miscarriage thing, honestly, now you really are just making straw man attacks. He's not saying mothers can't be upset if they lose unborn children, he's saying it's none of anyone else's business if she decides she wants to lose it..."

NO! I won't let you intellectualize what he said into something different. I won't let it be justified with words that don't apply. How can a bunch of cells, as he classifies the not-yet born, be a child??? That is saying that the unborn "child" is not a child at all! You add the term "child" but he distinctly says it's not a child. To him it is simply cells that have the ability to one day be a child. That's fine, but accept what that means.


And that brings up my point; either a woman is batshit crazy when she loses her cells (Like a woman crying every time she uses hand soap,) or it is a child she lost... And see Net, the problem is it now becomes an issue that you cannot defend, it is now a sexuality issue, an equality issue, and that's where you are not able to intellectualize.

You know why he won't say they're children? Because then he has to admit that the right have some sense in what they say. Instead, he now get's to have his cake and eat it too. "It's not a child except when the body itself aborts it...then women can be upset...even if I only called it a group of cells."

At least you have the balls to call it a child...

And speaking of cults--what about his own cult? If I called a woman a cunt, any woman, his supporters would be foaming at the mouth against me. But he waves his magical amazing-wand around and the supporters say its fine to use the word CUNT in certain occasions. But not for anyone else besides him...

(For the record, a lot of people didn't like his use of the word CUNT. Also for the record, his cultists didn't mind.)

You know it's funny--when I argue with highly intellectual individuals I always use "straw-man attacks" or am "wrong." In fact, as of today, I have never once noted something worthwhile that contrasted an intellectual's opinion. From now on when I hear the term straw-man I am just going to just assume there is no response and that the straw-man argument is itself a straw-man argument/attack.

@Lawdeedaw he's a lot more rude and blunt than me, and I'm definitely a million times more delicate when talking about abortion, but the actual core of what he was trying to say, I agree with.

To strip away the rudeness and hyperbole, what he said about abortion is "life" is all over the place, and we don't mind killing bacteria, insects, or even large mammals without even batting an eye. We don't seem to have any concern about killing sperm or eggs, despite their "potential" to become people either. Why should it change instantly once they're combined? It's still just a potential person and not an actual person for at least some period of time after conception.

The other point he made about abortion is that there's more to the question to consider beyond what the foetus is, there's also the consideration of what "banning abortion" would mean -- the state forcing women to carry to term pregnancies against their will. Even if you decide that's morally necessary, there's a huge array of practical implications that follow from that that the pro-life side really just handwaves away as if they're not cogent.

And with the miscarriage thing, honestly, now you really are just making straw man attacks. He's not saying mothers can't be upset if they lose unborn children, he's saying it's none of anyone else's business if she decides she wants to lose it...

But mostly what I meant by "I agree with every word" was the overall argument about how this whole thing about Ron Paul is a cult. Ron Paul isn't some savior, he's just a guy. Worse, he's a politician. Worse still, he's a Texas Republican. There's some things he says liberals might like, but most of his ideology a screaming horror of bugfuck insanity that we definitely don't want to help him implement.

As for this:

[I]f your party is arguing about stupid bullshit with itself other while the other party leads this country to its demise, are not the “intellectuals” the dumber group because the should know better?

This is a topic of conversation that comes up often on the left.

But the problem is, we then argue about what we should unify around. Me, I say hash our divisions out in Democratic primaries, then stand foursquare behind the Democrat, no matter who he or she might be. Others bitch and whine and moan about the insufficiency of Democrats and argue that we should be constantly attacking Democrats, in order to try to send a message to them (and this will somehow sway lots of people to vote Democratic because something something Overton Window).

So even on this, we're divided.

Oh, and you wanna be careful with anti-intellectual ideas like "if you're so smart, why can't you all just stop thinking for yourselves and unite behind a misguided idea like those unthinking zombies on the right?"

One doesn't have to be smart to drown out everyone else in a conversation, you just need to be louder and completely unselfconscious about telling people comforting lies.

the thing about "personal responsibility", is that it is used in very misleading, and brainwashed ways

the brainwashed way is the whole "you shouldn't have had a kid if you can't afford it" schpeel...

first, its moronic because it reduces the subject to $ figures... raising a child goes WELL beyond money, let alone the questions posed morally and on the scale of society itself... should only the rich (and yes, its expensive to have a child, outrageous actually, in the US... i'm not talking about the cost of feeding/clothing/education/etc... simply the procedures up to and including birth, let alone any issues that may arise afterwards both in mother and child - glad I live in a country where this is covered socially, and that I more than happily contribute to - our future isn't regulated to have/have nots)

second, as part of a society, do you feel you have a personal responsibility to it? or other members of it (irrespective of your opinion as to whether or not a particular person is "contributing" or not)? do other's in your society have a personal responsibility in regards to you?... the debate in the US literally ALWAYS boils down to someone arguing "personal responsibility" yet assuming none in regards to the society they "LOVE SO MUCH" and "WOULD DIE FOR"... that, or that if you give people handouts, that's all they'd ever want; they'd never strive

WELL, that is EXACTLY describing the situation of your (and I mean YOU, yes YOU) parent's raising you... did they keep all the receipts and calculate the interest you owe on top regarding food they fed you, education they paid for, etc? are they sending collectors yet?

better yet, can you honestly say you have no drive or ambitions in life because of being raised like this (as is the general norm)?

it provides a foundation, a base from which to launch... its two swimmers racing, one with something to push off of, and the other starting with nothing to push off of... sure the outcome isn't decided completely... but you can make a REALLY accurate guess as to who has the better chance to win... no one is throwing them a dragline while they are swimming... its just the start of the race

if you had a family member who got ill, would you help them? if the swimmer got cramps and couldn't stay afloat would you want someone to pull their head up above the water?

why this doesn't translate from being a staple of family life, to society should make most American's go "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm"

the honest truth... it is GREED
both personal GREED of the average citizen not wanting to spend a cent on a fellow citizen
and corporate GREED... they see social programs and free health care as either a pool of money they don't got but WANT or robbery from them... and they lobby and basically buy off politicians through campaign financing and lucrative job offers post office... meanwhile you are sold that this is in the interests of your freedom... when really all you are being sold is the freedom to be F_CKED

Government is there to protect the INTERESTS of it's citizens, not it's CORPORATIONS (most of whom are multinational btw)... and it's failing Americans... mainly because Americans are failing themselves... they'd rather drink the kool-aid than question what's in it... they'd rather get worked up about side issues that really only affect their life MINIMALLY (mainly because of religion) rather than care about issues that do... and they like to bite people who question the status quo... why? because WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!! USA USA USA. (despite the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary)

its really elementary logic to deduce that a society that tries to elevate itself by uplifting all members of that society (or as many as possible) will have a better survival chance than a society where all individuals horde and fight over resources... i mean, which one do you think leads to feudal style systems? really?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I see value in broad categories like Liberal and Conservative or Rock and Hip Hop. I find the small categories to be silly, like Nü-Hard-Alterno-Glitch-Break-Indie-Core-Hop and Strict-Conservo-Constitutionalist-Neo-Minarcho-Capitaltarianistism. >> ^blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism
Despite the fact that I honestly believe you are conservative, part of the fun of calling you conservative is your overly defensive reaction. If you were to own it or ignore it, the charge would disintegrate faster than Freddy Kruger.
Trolololo.
This from the guy who takes exception to political labels and thinks people aren't so easily definable. Tsk. You're trolling, sir. I have no candy for you today.


I'm discouraged you dichotomize people into such a simplistic and stark binary world view. Conservative vs. Liberal. Black vs. white. Good vs. evil. With us or against us.

I'm curious where in your either/or world view do you put the original liberals? And then what of these guys? I say this as a concerned friend, maybe don't claim absolute certainty about concepts you're having a hard time grasping. Troll on, friend. Troll on.

I see value in broad categories like Liberal and Conservative or Rock and Hip Hop. I find the small categories to be silly, like Nü-Hard-Alterno-Glitch-Break-Indie-Core-Hop and Strict-Conservo-Constitutionalist-Neo-Minarcho-Capitaltarianistism. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism
Despite the fact that I honestly believe you are conservative, part of the fun of calling you conservative is your overly defensive reaction. If you were to own it or ignore it, the charge would disintegrate faster than Freddy Kruger.
Trolololo.
This from the guy who takes exception to political labels and thinks people aren't so easily definable. Tsk. You're trolling, sir. I have no candy for you today.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism
Despite the fact that I honestly believe you are conservative, part of the fun of calling you conservative is your overly defensive reaction. If you were to own it or ignore it, the charge would disintegrate faster than Freddy Kruger.

Trolololo.

This from the guy who takes exception to political labels and thinks people aren't so easily definable. Tsk. You're trolling, sir. I have no candy for you today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism

Despite the fact that I honestly believe you are conservative, part of the fun of calling you conservative is your overly defensive reaction. If you were to own it or ignore it, the charge would disintegrate faster than Freddy Kruger.

>> ^blankfist:

Trololololofuturetoday

I was offering myself as proof of what happens when you do this to a child. This happened to me. I know where it goes. I am damaged. Isn't that clear?

I also know things that are true.

I'll say it again. You say something emotionally honest on the Sift, and you get lectured. You are proving my point. Parse my words into tiny bits. Or just listen to what I have to say and say "oh."

That happens if you are a man on the sift being emotionally honest, also. You will get raked over the coals. I'm not playing the female card, I am playing the male card.



In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
>> ^bareboards2:

I knew this would happen.
Say something real about emotional issues and this always happens.

The problem is not that you said "something real about emotional issues" it's that you started painting yourself the victim before anyone had even criticized you.

My guess is you don't realize you're doing it but look at the thread again. @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/residue" title="member since July 22nd, 2007" class="profilelink">residue states that he disagrees that this was intentional cruelty. He said nothing attacking you, he just disagreed with you.

The very next comment is your reply in which you are already talking about taking a stand and "being trashed by some in the Sift community".

A couple comments later, still nobody has attacked you, and you say "I knew I was going to be raked over the coals for being real here. I thought I might get an hour or maybe a supportive comment between me taking a risk emotionally and somebody coming in and being all Male-Sifty on me." You lashed out at @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://gwiz665.videosift.com" title="member since February 22nd, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#b02033">gwiz665 and you want to play the oppressed female card.

That's why you get the reaction you are now getting from everyone. If your concern for the baby is genuine (and I suspect it is) then you really need to work on your delivery. Talking about how much it damaged you to see this baby cry is not the way to make your point.

@blankfist - Let's be honest, buddy, you are smart, but you aren't anywhere near as smart as Netrunner. Perhaps you should put down the stones until you can find a dwelling that isn't made of glass.

Alternately: Don't be a dick to others and I won't be a dick to you.

But do things change unless we speak up?

You're right -- I would not want to pass a bunch of laws restricting all actions to only what **I** think is correct.

However, righteous indignation and howling into the wilderness when watching a beautiful woman deform herself, aided by a licensed professional -- this needs doing. More people need to do it. Men need to do it. If more people did it, maybe it would stop.

The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. I'm going to take that step and the next one.

You're right about downvoting also -- now that I have my stars, I think everyone has the same powers. Silly me.


>> ^NinjaInHeat:

The thing that disappoints me about statements like these is that they're not objective. There's a general tendency among the hardcore liberals here (not you specifically but I find this to be an example of this behavior) to defend values like freedom of choice/speech/etc, but only so long as they fit certain ideals they have for their vision of a 'good society'.
I get what you're saying, I can honestly tell you that I not only sympathize but whole-heartily agree; damn shame that a woman would subject her perfectly natural, normal body to this procedure.
But here's where we part ways: so what if it disturbs me? Who the hell cares what I think? It's her choice. I don't support women's right to have abortions because I think they're the proper/healthy course of action for some women in some situations (though they definitely are), I support it because it should be their right to decide what's proper/healthy for themselves, regardless of how I feel about it.
And as for cito, his comment wasn't worth reading let alone commenting on. I would downvote but I was under the impression I have to be some special-star-mega-shiny-member to downvote stuff.

The thing that disappoints me about statements like these is that they're not objective. There's a general tendency among the hardcore liberals here (not you specifically but I find this to be an example of this behavior) to defend values like freedom of choice/speech/etc, but only so long as they fit certain ideals they have for their vision of a 'good society'.

I get what you're saying, I can honestly tell you that I not only sympathize but whole-heartily agree; damn shame that a woman would subject her perfectly natural, normal body to this procedure.

But here's where we part ways: so what if it disturbs me? Who the hell cares what I think? It's her choice. I don't support women's right to have abortions because I think they're the proper/healthy course of action for some women in some situations (though they definitely are), I support it because it should be their right to decide what's proper/healthy for themselves, regardless of how I feel about it.

And as for cito, his comment wasn't worth reading let alone commenting on. I would downvote but I was under the impression I have to be some special-star-mega-shiny-member to downvote stuff.

>> ^bareboards2:

No, I don't think it is irrelevant.
If every single person said to this poor woman -- your body was beautiful just the way it was, please don't deform yourself for some idea in your head, then maybe just maybe, this would stop.
And yeah, I can have an opinion. A really strong one.
And yes, doctors who deform perfectly healthy bodies should be subject to peer review.
I had a friend years ago who had breast enhancement surgery. She lost a lot of weight and was so happy to be comfortable in her body. With the weight loss, her breasts shrunk and were deformed looking. She showed me a picture of her before -- it looked like she had two deflated hot dogs laying down her chest.
Now there is a woman whose self esteem was truly enhanced by surgery.
This woman? No way.
You want to comment on someone's post? Go say something to @cito. That is the most disgusting, rank, filthy thing he wrote and I am the only one to downvote it? And you want to lecture me about my opinion?


>> ^NinjaInHeat:
The doctor is a villain and should lose his license? Did he do something wrong or is that your general stand regarding any plastic surgeon? How about tattoo artists?
Whether you approve or not is irrelevant, wouldn't you agree?

>> ^BoneRemake:
So.. Whats the difference then ? Every politician lies, "we" all thought barrack was gonna kick ass, and he is just another tool. Doesnt matter what name gets elected, they wont do what they say, they never do.
Politicians are salesmen for themselves, and you can not trust a salesman. I am in the stands on voting, people are stupid and there are a lot of them out there buying this shit.
PHOOEY


Sigh... no. The fact that politicians lie is the outcome--but the reason is FAR more important than the outcome.

Every politician lies. WHY? Because they wouldn't be elected if they didn't. We would punish them, shit on them, and ruin their lives if they told half of what they believed. We do this every election cycle!

We the people make the salesmen.

Why are there so few nice guys left? Because the world eats them up and spits their fucking carcasses out. I hate myself sometimes because I used to be a very nice guy and was sharted on every day from everywhere. Now that I have become wiser, harsher and less likable? I am more liked. I cannot fathom that in any manner.

You’re not stupid for voting for someone you believe is telling you the truth, you’re stupid for going into an election bar, being smooth-talked by some slick fuck in a nice suit, and going home with him to his ballot. Then, when you're crying to your friend about the disease you caught, the same friend that is the honest guy you left at the bar all alone, you wonder why he hangs up the phone on you… You wonder why he doesn't try or care. Because he did try and care--and you didn't.

Sorry for the long tirade. But the excuse is shallow on me. How to stop the lies is far more valuable than to note that they do... Here is a comment I wrote in another video, "On the right, on the left, why can't all politicians be as decent as Paul? Forget what you believe in and vote for the candidate that is most decent as a human being. Because, if you vote for a liar who "believes" as you do, you won't get anything but dick."

I would vote for Dennis John Kucinich too, for the same reason of truthiness. And I am far from liberal... And I am sure Blankfist would too, because, if not, then he would be a very shitty voter. Just like--all the other shitty voters who are damning us all.

Well, now you're making me think you got ripped off by greedy capitalists who weren't honest with you about what they're offering you.

Who chipped your dog? What service did you purchase from them? Did they tell you it was an alternative to getting a license, because they provide the animal control services for your area?

You need to be registered with animal control. They're not just doing it to discern pet from stray, but also to keep an eye on the pet population, the flow of animals in & out of homes, etc. And of course the fee is helping defray the cost of the entire animal control operation, not just tags.

Now I personally am not in love with the idea of charging a fee to pet owners. Economically speaking, it'd make more sense for animal control to pay people $5-$10 to register their pets, and then pay for the entire budget of animal control (including that $5-$10 responsible owner bonus) with property taxes, since the bulk of animal control's costs are aimed at picking up strays and helping maintain public health & safety for a geographic region, not tags & registry.

Would you prefer that set up? I would.

>> ^blankfist:

That aside, @NetRunner, thanks for the history lesson, but the point is that I've already taken the proper precautions in giving him his vacines and even gone above and beyond when giving him tracking (tags + RFID), so I don't need the government to charge me that $20 a month. See? I don't require their one-size-fits-all solution to lost dogs. We, in the private sector, already have that covered.
By the way, if Animal Control ever picked up my dog, they'd first see the tag and call me. In case that was lost they'd most likely scan for the RFID chip. So, why do they need me to pay for a (emphasis mine) YEARLY REGISTRATION FEE?
It's obviously to generate revenue not for protection since I've already covered my basis. So, please, respond to that. Thanks.