Ha, what does that say about my commenting I wonder? :-/

Well, I'm glad to be a recipient of your comment upvote journey

In reply to this comment by longde:
Hi Spoco.

I took the 4 words in the comment below; then did a 4 comment searches with each of the keywords. Then read and upvoted the comments that had 14 points in the results. You won the jackpot; apparently you had a few comments with any of those words therein.

crazy, wrong, long, frequent



In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Hey, you didn't just happen to purposefully go and upvote a bunch of my comments to get me to the next Silver Tongue level did you? If so... thanks!

If not, then... thanks for all the upvotes on my comments anyway, I must be an insightful chap

Hi Spoco.

I took the 4 words, below; then did a 4 comment searches with each of the keywords. Then read and upvoted the comments that had 14 points in the results. You won the jackpot; apparently you had a few comments with any of those words therein.

crazy, wrong, long, frequent



In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Hey, you didn't just happen to purposefully go and upvote a bunch of my comments to get me to the next Silver Tongue level did you? If so... thanks!

If not, then... thanks for all the upvotes on my comments anyway, I must be an insightful chap

Rebeka black is not deserving of success she is simply a tool of sum-one else I don't know why people Evan engage with her at all when she herself has pretty much nothing to do with the popularity of the video on all levels. (production not her , Viral spred not her , Creation of memes surrounding it not her, Additional promotion and spoof vids with Rebbecca in them , not her )

At least people like Tay zonday or however u write his name came up with the song and sang it themselves put vid out them-selfs.

I don't think anyone is really angry at Rebeka Black they just hate what is another product of a sole less system and they are not sure how to communicate that. Rebeka blacks situation is pretty much the same as some kids parents blowing 10k on lottery tickets and they happen to win the jackpot.

In reality all the congratulations should go to ark media who have managed to convince upper middle class families to give them money giving them an opertunity to game the system and profit from it at no risk to them selfs.

So this comedian is a bit stupid attributing annything to Rebeka black evan if his core message is sound IE "Ignore trolls and just produce your own stuff and enjoy things".

Yes in some ways she has coped reasonably well with the fame an she has also given money to charity which is fantastic but i think Most normal people would have done the same and its not like that suddenly rectifies the fact that capitalism is totally messed up.

Thats another thing Why does it take this guy ages of blabbing on to just say "Ignore Trolls" also he kind of makes an argument about peoples comments not been valid and that they should make videos which is fine but comments are just another form of communication as much as a video.

And finaly to finish off all my shit spewing . I don't understand why when a song video becomes a viral hit people attribute skill to it and it has run on success but when it comes to other vidios that are basically the same but not a song just something that is amusing and catches on people see it for what it is a "just a random viral video" Like That random horse sex video with 10 million views , or dramatic chipmunk .

>> ^Sagemind:

... But totally sanitary as the Whiskey kills any germs or viruses present!


Off-topic:

Viruses can live through alcohol. The simpler they are, as they're "dead" anyway, the easier it becomes for them to not be targeted by alcohol. Some have protective protein or other type of layers on their outer layer (or shell, whatever). Those are the ones that die; like influenza (I'm unsure if it kills ALL types of influenza), HIV, and I think Herpes simplex. However, other viruses like Herpes A (correct me if I screwed that up anybody, this is by rote memory) don't die. Viruses are just "lines of code" were as bacteria has structure, relies on it's environment and is just as susceptible to it's own "diseases" that come in the form of proteins, enzymes, or molecules (like alcohol). Alcohol can pass the outer layer of the cell walls and screw things up, plus it can cause water to get absorbed (I'm not sure if it would "pop" the bacteria, I think it just destroys the cell's integrity).

For all we know there ARE bacteria out there that can survive, but they'd have to be specifically setup in a way that the intrusion of the alcohol doesn't disrupt cell functions. For all we know they could evolve a surface that has a function that deals with alcohol. Of course, some have to survive in the first place or by random evolution hit the jackpot pertaining to alcohol; their structure is their major limitation in protection (one cell and dirt simple) . I also love how silver does it's thing to bacteria. Yes this is semi-off topic, but I live for science. *monocle smile* (do we have an emoticon, yet?)

I'm more scared of prions.
(of Mad Cow disease fame; really scary scenarios are possible if we get a full-on human version)

I picked one to ten thousand. I've never won a jackpot, however every day I don't spend a dollar on a lottery tickey, is a day I just won a dollar.

>> ^sometimes:

dead


Fixed (hope it was the same video) and thanks.

Up on Cripple Creek, she sends me;
If I spring a leak, she mends me;
I don't have to speak, she defends me.
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one.

>> ^acidSpine:

Hey, hey Cripple Creek ferry
Butting through the overhanging trees
Make way for the Cripple Creek ferry
The waters going down it's a mighty tight squeeze.
All alone the captain stands
Hasn't heard from his deck hands.
The gambler tips his hat and walks towards the door.
It's the second half of the cruise.
And you know he hates to lose.
Hey, hey Cripple Creek ferry
Butting through the overhanging trees
Make way for the Cripple Creek ferry
The waters going down it's a mighty tight squeeze.

This seems incredibly harsh, until you realize that the machine that lady was playing on wasn't exactly one of those progressive machines with the gigantic jackpots. The top prize on that thing was probably something like 2000 bucks, if that -- so she had to know pretty much immediately that something was amiss, and that she wasn't going to be a millionaire any time soon.

♪You just call out my name
and you know, where ever I am
I'll come running
to see your boobs ♫

>> ^blankfist:

I hate to be all @gwiz665 about this, but doesn't that news reporter in the orange shirt have the most perfect b cups?

This is why I laugh at all the people who gamble. Why would anyone put their money into a machine clearly labeled "malfunction voids all pays and plays" is beyond me. Its right fucking there; the whole setup is in the casinos favor. You want your jackpot?

Open a casino.

First off, thanks for replying. I enjoy these conversations. They give me lots of great things to think about and explore.

Now, I think you unintentionally changed my argument. My argument wasn't "How does science explain why I like sugar?" I know people like sugary foods already. My point was that science cannot tell me why it is that of all the yummy flavors of ice cream out there, I like chocolate chip mint best. This, by the way, is not a technical limitation of science. Science can, as you noted in your post, provide an explanation as to why I prefer eating ice cream to say, spinach. It can indeed tell me about all the processes that occur in my brain (which areas get activated, what chemicals get released, etc.) when I eat chocolate chip mint ice cream. The problem is that these processes will not be the same for all people who eat chocolate chip mint ice cream.

So what we have here, then, are people experiencing that same exact objective event--we're all eating the same ice cream--and getting different results. Science is utterly unprepared to deal with this situation. Science only works in a situation in which objective knowledge can be obtained. It shouldn't matter who is doing the measuring--you should get the same result. Yet in this situation, we have multiple people "measuring" (ie tasting ice cream) and getting different results depending on the person.

To truly answer the question of why I like chocolate chip mint best, we are forced to refer to subjective knowledge and explore my personal life history up to this point, including things like my experiences, feelings, attitudes, likes and dislikes, etc. These things cannot be measured. How do you measure an experience? How could you possibly understand what I meant by without being me--having access to all of my memories, thoughts, feelings, EVERYTHING that is me? The answer is simple: you couldn't. I could explain to you in crude terms that I like chocolate chip mint better than chocolate chip by only a little bit, but you will never be able to "know" exactly what I mean "by only a little bit" (without being me, that is).

Your argument is that this problem is simply a technical matter, but I'm curious if you've taken that view to its logical conclusion--that we have no free will and are simply automatons that function at the whim of electrical impulses and chemical reactions in the brain. If science truly could explain to me why I like chocolate chip mint ice cream over say pistachio without taking into account my subjective experiences, then subjective experiences would have no meaning at all. Is that really what you're suggesting?

Let me next address a couple of unspoken assumptions you made in your reply to me. One seems to be that people of faith stop searching for answers because they believe in a god or higher power. But here clearly we have significant counter-evidence to your belief--namely in the vast number of scientists who are also believers in some religion (see this article). As scientists, they must continue to look for answers and re-evaluate new evidence as it arises, which seems to run counter to your assumption.

Another assumption seems to be that science and "rational thinking" makes people less likely to believe in religion. Again, see the previous article, which shows the percentage of scientists believe in religion hasn't changed so much despite the advances in science from 1916 to 1997 (when the second study was done). Are there religious people who are closed-minded and refuse to re-evaluate new evidence as it arises? Absolutely. But that is not a characteristic of many religious people and therefore your assumption would be an over-generalization.

Now, on to your next assumption--that no one will cry over the loss of dark matter. While I agree that in an ideal world, this would be true, I think you and I can agree the world we live in would be far from ideal. Science takes a great deal of time to change. The very skepticism that science holds so dear also puts the brakes on quick change in consensus within the scientific community. People will refuse to change their beliefs quickly. Experimental data will be checked and re-checked and I'm sure criticisms will be made about experiment design and other factors. Few experiments are performed that are so well designed as to be able to defy criticism. Skepticism doesn't just require evidence for belief, it requires overwhelming evidence and hence any change will be slow (there are still scientists arguing against global warming).

Ironically, I think you could look at religious people as reverse-skeptics. Where a skeptic will not believe anything without overwhelming evidence to support it, a religious person will not change their belief in something without overwhelming evidence that the belief is wrong. And this, I suppose, is the main reason why skeptics and believers simply cannot agree with each other. There is not enough (I would say any, actually) reliable evidence (objective or subjective) to convince either side. How could there be? Most skeptics discount subjective knowledge (their own included) right from the start. Everyone is arguing over apples and oranges.

Now, by all means, when someone says the world is 6000 years old, or that Jesus walked with dinosaurs, or that evolution is "just a theory," by all means take these people to task. They're wandering about in the realm of objective knowledge where science reigns supreme. But when someone says they believe in something (religion, Democracy, volunteering, world peace, whatever), demanding they show objective evidence of their belief and ridiculing them if they can't meet your arbitrary standard of proof (science requires overwhelming evidence, but there's no clear definition of how much is enough) is just plain wrong in my opinion.

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
Perhaps, but no religious apologist I've ever heard has managed to convince me of that. Thats my whole point. If a believer came to me saying something like "we have independent statistics showing a significant benefit of prayer among cancer patients", that would be the kind of thing that might make me admit that belief in god was a rational and logical decision.

To your point about chocolate preference, I wouldn't be as sure, it may be a technical limitation rather than an absolute one. We already know why people tend to like chocolate, for instance (evolved sugar craving) its a tad more tricky to find out the specifics of your particular taste, but if we fully understood every detail of the brain, it might not be impossible, even without actually being you. Either way, Chocolate is a perfect example of how our subjective experience fails us: Because our ancestors lived in environments where sugar was a rarity, our bodies treat every carbohydrate molecule like it was the jackpot, basically our bodies telling us "Sugar in large quantities is great for you" Well its not, and thats a perfect example of how objective knowledge and scientific thinking always prevail over the subjective assumptions we make.

Which brings me to the point about the sun moving across the sky, which is again were science triumphs: Yes, the default assumption was that the sun, moon and stars moved around the earth, but the important part of the story is that as scientists and curious apes as we are, we arent happy just making assumptions and stop there, we keep investigating, as we will do with dark matter, it may be the best assumption we currently have, but thats not the important thing, the important thing about science is that we keep trying to figure out exactly whats going on, and if that means scrapping the whole idea about dark matter, no scientist will shed a tear, (just like we didnt when it turned out we werent the center of the universe) we will rejoice in our deeper understanding of things.

>> ^SDGundamX:

What you see as a leap-of-faith may be to the experiencer a perfectly rational and logical decision.

Perhaps, but no religious apologist I've ever heard has managed to convince me of that. Thats my whole point. If a believer came to me saying something like "we have independent statistics showing a significant benefit of prayer among cancer patients", that would be the kind of thing that might make me admit that belief in god was a rational and logical decision.

To your point about chocolate preference, I wouldnt be as sure, it may be a technical limitation rather than an absolute one. We already know why people tend to like chocolate, for instance (evolved sugar craving) its a tad more tricky to find out the specifics of your particular taste, but if we fully understood every detail of the brain, it might not be impossible, even without actually being you. Either way, Chocolate is a perfect example of how our subjective experience fails us: Because our ancestors lived in environments where sugar was a rarity, our bodies treat every carbohydrate molecule like it was the jackpot, basically our bodies telling us "Sugar in large quantities is great for you" Well its not, and thats a perfect example of how objective knowledge and scientific thinking always prevail over the subjective assumptions we make.

Which brings me to the point about the sun moving across the sky, which is again were science triumphs: Yes, the default assumption was that the sun, moon and stars moved around the earth, but the important part of the story is that as scientists and curious apes as we are, we arent happy just making assumptions and stop there, we keep investigating, as we will do with dark matter, it may be the best assumption we currently have, but thats not the important thing, the important thing about science is that we keep trying to figure out exactly whats going on, and if that means scrapping the whole idea about dark matter, no scientist will shed a tear, (just like we didnt when it turned out we werent the center of the universe) we will rejoice in our deeper understanding of things.

>> ^SDGundamX:

What you see as a leap-of-faith may be to the experiencer a perfectly rational and logical decision.

I'm actually wondering myself... It's amusing, but not that much
>> ^oohahh:

Explain why this is #1?

>> ^raverman:

Lets check out your freak level:
So you're fapping away to the free booty dance, then it skips and suddenly, you're still fapping, but it's Osama...
Does it kill your buzz? or do you finish?


Well..

That depends, do you love freedom, or are you in love with freedom?

Your video, Chatroulette JACKPOT!!!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.