You can't think of a single reason why someone would OCR a birth certificate? Granted, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you just don't have experience with such things.

OCR'ing documents is incredibly useful in the modern age. When you simply scan an image. It's an image, nothing more. When you OCR it, those images get interpreted as actual letters and words. Those words can be searched. If you have a hundreds of thousands, if not millions of birth certificates from people who were born long before the information age, do you think it might be useful to OCR them into the system so they can be...searched...instead manually looking through them. There's lesson the first.

Lesson the second: I know you seem to forget that we have these things called memories and have the ability to remember the previous things you may have said and/or posted. You might have forgotten you submitted the following sift:

http://videosift.com/video/Confirmed-Obamas-Birth-Certificate-Not-Authentic-2012

Are you admitting that you were wrong, or at the very least you have changed your mind? That said, if you can admit that he is in fact, a US Citizen, what does it matter that his birth certificate looks so shitty as you say? There are any number of reasons the document looks shitty, it could be a copy of a copy of a copy. they could have shitty scanners..anything. All of which are irrelavant since you are now changing your argument.

When has ANY President had such scrutiny over their birth certificate? What could possibly be the reason why no one cares about Bill Clinton's birth certificate? Or Jimmy Carter's? Or Ronald Reagan's or the Bushes'? Someone at the beginning had to say "hrm, I just don't think that person is a citizen, I better look into that" Do you think anyone ever said that about Clinton? Reagan? Carter?? Bush Sr. and Bush Jr?? Why is that do you think?

If there was ANY shred of truth to his birth certificate being fake, it would have been discovered in 2008, if not earlier when he ran for senate. It's very plausible to say that there has never been a president under as much scrutiny as Obama been through. If his biggest critics and enemies can't find it in all this time...then your arguments just don't hold much weight.

Lesson the third: Once again, here we are talking about irrelevant things or things that cannot be proven. We're talking about birth certificates instead of actual relevant things. You make the accusation that he is anti-american...Prove it. You guys guys make those ad-hom arguments all the time. Not only is it yet another logical fallacy, you never back it up. He's anti-american....because you say so. Sorry, but we're going to need something a LITTLE more concrete than that. If you want to be taken seriously and talk with the grownups, you actually need to back up the shit you spew.

Lesson the fourth: You know what also ruins your credibility? Your horrible horrible grammar. You are frequently incapable of writing a coherent post without making numerous errors. Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't even take the time to spell or write properly. We all make mistakes, buddy, but you make them a LOT. It speaks to your intelligence and your ability to be thoughtful.

Here endeth the lesson.

>> ^bobknight33:

Vodoo,
I think that Obama was born in Hawaii.
That being said why did Obama did put out a piss poor excuse of a birth certificate. no image has 13 layers. If you scan an image it is one layer.
Even if you OCR the document ( why would you even do it) it would not have look as bad as the document he put out.
What ever rock Obama crawled out of under, Americans will let him go back to it in November.
Buy the way Obama is anti American. He has done more to thwart America than to make it a leader among nations.
>> ^VoodooV:
Just to play devil's advocate, but let us suppose for a moment that the conservatives are right and Obama is the worst, most liberal President in all of American History.
The message STILL gets diminished because conservatives are associated with nutbag ideas like the birther loonies.
You want people to take conservatives seriously? ditch the birther loonies, ditch the racist tea-baggers. Tell Romney to make a statement without being proven a liar ten seconds later.
If Obama is so bad, you should be able to easily make a rational argument without the lunatics playing the racist card.
Problem is...they haven't. They don't have a leg to stand on, so they grasp desperately for anything, no matter how flimsy.
I've lost count of how many times my rational republican friends get pissed off at their own party because they do actually try to offer up some legit complaints against Obama, stuff I would actually agree with since no one has ever made the argument that he's perfect, but the rational discourse gets drowned out by the racists and the conspiracy theories that don't hold any water or the nonsense Romney spews.
Believe it or not, there are actually Republicans out there who want to collaborate and work together and put their good ideas forth, they just get drowned out amongst all the people screaming Kenyan, Communist, Muslim, or un-American.
Even McCain had to dial it back and defend Obama from the nutbags.

>> ^Fletch:

Cherry-picking history and regurgitating logical fallacies seem to be all you Repugs have in your arsenal nowadays. It's pitiful.

We can always count on the gop-bots to bring the stoopid.
Your argument is so much stronger without this foamy cruft.



You're certainly aware of how effective this is at painting the rest of your argument as the same kind of "us-vs-them" garbage (regardless of its merits) so it comes across as so much chest-puffing and strutting about. That is to say, when you argue like this, you're obviously not arguing for effect - you're showing off for your friends.

As I said, if you want to msg me, we can discuss this further. I've posted many reasons why I said what I did, if you don't want to accept them at face value that's your choice.

>> ^VoodooV:

unless you can read minds or they specifically state "I downvote because I hate religion" you can't judge intent that way.
But you're missing the point. It matters not what topic you discuss, if you commit a logical fallacy, people won't respect you and guess what, they're more likely to downvote you here.
understanding and avoiding logical fallacies is like...debate and discourse 101.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Funny thing is, the article on fallacies is one of the few things that both Wikipedia and Conservapedia agree on, both articles appear accurate. Of course, Conservapedia's examples are radically different
What I see you (and bobknight) do a lot is commit the "appeal to belief" fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html
you can believe whatever you want to believe, but when you pass your belief off as fact in the public arena without anything to back it up, you lose any credibility you may have earned.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I gave proof in the thread, most notably the 18 discarded posts I have. I'm not going to debate religion with you here. If you want to debate me, then msg me and pick a topic.
>> ^VoodooV:
see here we go with more fallacies.
"People downvote for ideological reasons (they hate religion)"
This is an untrue statement. Unless you've developed some mind reading abilities that I'm not aware of, you simply cannot know why people downvote.
You forget the most simple reason of all: Religion has zero basis in fact and/or reason, therefore it has zero grounds to be treated with any authority. especially in matters of public government."
If you're going to claim they just do it because of hate, you better: 1) back that up with actual evidence and arguments. and 2) ask yourself the very simple question: "If they do hate religion, do they have a good reason why?"
I'd be willing to bet the kids molested by priests can think of a view VERY GOOD reasons's why.

unless you can read minds or they specifically state "I downvote because I hate religion" you can't judge intent that way.

But you're missing the point. It matters not what topic you discuss, if you commit a logical fallacy, people won't respect you and guess what, they're more likely to downvote you here.

understanding and avoiding logical fallacies is like...debate and discourse 101.

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

Funny thing is, the article on fallacies is one of the few things that both Wikipedia and Conservapedia agree on, both articles appear accurate. Of course, Conservapedia's examples are radically different

What I see you (and bobknight) do a lot is commit the "appeal to belief" fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html

you can believe whatever you want to believe, but when you pass your belief off as fact in the public arena without anything to back it up, you lose any credibility you may have earned.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I gave proof in the thread, most notably the 18 discarded posts I have. I'm not going to debate religion with you here. If you want to debate me, then msg me and pick a topic.
>> ^VoodooV:
see here we go with more fallacies.
"People downvote for ideological reasons (they hate religion)"
This is an untrue statement. Unless you've developed some mind reading abilities that I'm not aware of, you simply cannot know why people downvote.
You forget the most simple reason of all: Religion has zero basis in fact and/or reason, therefore it has zero grounds to be treated with any authority. especially in matters of public government."
If you're going to claim they just do it because of hate, you better: 1) back that up with actual evidence and arguments. and 2) ask yourself the very simple question: "If they do hate religion, do they have a good reason why?"
I'd be willing to bet the kids molested by priests can think of a view VERY GOOD reasons's why.

>> ^lantern53:

White men are the most maligned people on the planet. We make laws here protecting women from domestic abuse, providing health care and free breakfasts for their kids, etc. yet because this man is not a woman, he is some kind of shit to be abused.
By your logic, since he is a man, he must be thinking that woman are property to be utilized in any way with no regard for their well-being.
Your logic is porked.


Sorry, but that's just fucking sad.

This particular dipshit (I didn't see any other white men being interviewed) didn't pass the protections you mentioned all by himself (if he had anything to do with them at all). For all you know, he fought tooth and nail against them. By your "logic" this idiot shouldn't be criticised because those protections exist at all.

What in this video made you believe he has ANY regard for the well-being of women, outside of allowing an abortion to save her life? Or are you just running to his defense because he has an "R" next to his name?

About 30% of the world population is white. Do you think only white men had anything to do with laws that protect women? By your logic, those white men were ALSO solely responsible for the housing market collapse, 3 unneccesary wars, the world-wide recession, and all the financial scandals that seem to be exposed on a daily basis. They could use a little maligning. Cherry-picking history and regurgitating logical fallacies seem to be all you Repugs have in your arsenal nowadays. It's pitiful.

The whole point of the video is that this crusader against abortion hasn't even considered the view of those who would be most affected by anti-abortion laws. Why do you think that is? Money from anti-abortion donors? Religious nuttery? Towing the party line? Incapable of empathy (a sociopath)? That he is a man who wants to pass laws that only affect women makes it even more disgraceful.

We can always count on the gop-bots to bring the stoopid.

It's comments like this that make me wish we had a *double-upvote invocation for points.

Thanks, @VoodooV coming here to say what I wanted to say.
>> ^VoodooV:
That's exactly it.

People don't downvote shinyblurry or bobknight33 or etc's videos/comments because of political idealogy (well i'm sure some do) They downvote because they commit numerous logical fallacies over and over again that are demonstrably incorrect. Shinyblurry's argument of having a personal experience, thus equating god as fact may work for him, but that does not give him grounds for him to make his evangelical "it's my faith, therefore it's also fact" arguments. I can't downvote myself, but I would if I could.

Just the other day, bobknight33 made his comment about how we're the ones who don't really know what the founders believed and they were all devout christians. This is a provably false statement. It has nothing to do with idealogy.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^gwiz665:
There's a philosophical difference between a downvote on a video and a downvote on a comment.
On a video it's either "this does not belong on videosift" or by extension "this is so bad i don't want this on videosift", while a comment is close to "i don't like/agree with what was written here"

Hmmm, as someone who only recently gained the ability to downvote, I do it differently. A downvote on a video to me is just "this video isn't very good", regardless of the stance it's taking. Similarly a downvote on a comment has more to do with the merit of the argument rather than the position. I've upvoted people I disagree with who argued their point well, and downvoted because the comment is irrelevant, pointless, fallacious, etc.
Much as he annoys me, I try not to downvote @shinyblurry, because I believe he genuinely believes in what he's saying (regardless of how factually incorrect it might be).


That's exactly it.

People don't downvote shinyblurry or bobknight33 or etc's videos/comments because of political idealogy (well i'm sure some do) They downvote because they commit numerous logical fallacies over and over again that are demonstrably incorrect. Shinyblurry's argument of having a personal experience, thus equating god as fact may work for him, but that does not give him grounds for him to make his evangelical "it's my faith, therefore it's also fact" arguments. I can't downvote myself, but I would if I could.

Just the other day, bobknight33 made his comment about how we're the ones who don't really know what the founders believed and they were all devout christians. This is a provably false statement. It has nothing to do with idealogy.

As i've stated in the past, people like them drop their bombs and run away. The vast majority of the time they never stick around to argue/defend their position. They just wait for the next controversial sift so they can drop their bomb again and run away. Sure shinyblurry will actually attempt to argue his position so he's one of the exceptions, but it's that same "I believe, therefore it's true" argument over and over again and it's a fallacy.

It's been a while since I watched it but I think he lost me at a bit where he concludes that there is no point, therefore the premise of living life as an atheist is false. My own response to this is that there does not need to be a point and, due to the sequential nature of his reasoning, everything that comes after this is flawed because of the false dichotomy. (I was reading the wikipedia list of logical fallacies last week )

>> ^shinyblurry:

Glad that you can see that..you might be the first. What do you specifically disagree on with the first video?
>> ^lampishthing:
Yeah, I don't agree with the first video but, if you take it as a given, what he says here makes sense.>> ^shinyblurry:
In context, it isn't cognitive dissonance. He started off by saying that you have to surrender freedom to the truth to get the deeper and richer freedom. Do you understand what he meant by that? For instance, let's say you decided to be an anarchist and did whatever you wanted instead of following the rule of law. Technically, you are exercising a lot more freedom as an anarchist. You are making your own rules, essentially. However, the truth is that you would actually be much less free, because once you gave up following the rules, you would no longer be accepted in the society. So, although you may be more free when you can do whatever you want, you give up that individual freedom to participate in the society, and that gives you a deeper and richer freedom. Truth can both destroy and liberate freedom. What matters is what we were designed for, what truth we have to surrender to to actually be free, which is what the video is talking about.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
holy shit.
"It is true.. that claiming to have the truth is a terrific way to destroy freedom.
And yet, there is a truth that we've gotta have to be free" ?!?!?!
You know what cognitive dissonance is.. right, shiny?

"Most religion as we know it is wrong. This is the religion approved by God:"

nononono @shinyblurry you don't get to duck out like that like a wuss. In order to be intellectually honest with yourself, you HAVE to contemplate the possibility that you are wrong.

Seriously? do you listen to yourself when you say that? All religions are wrong but mine? If you want to claim intellectual honesty...shit like that does not cut it.

"The only way you could know the truth is if you are omnipotent, or an omnipotent being told you. Christians are claiming the latter. I have a route to truth, and you don't, so how are you telling me I don't know what it is? How would you know that?"

Oh my, you are pretty much the definition of insane, you know this right? You've allowed your ego to completely compromise your capacity to reason.

I'm just going to leave this here:

"The key characteristics of a sociopath include: (1) having no conscience, (2) inability to treat others as human beings, with feelings and rights and (3) inability to learn from experience, from life. One result of this last is gross immaturity, though it may be hidden unless one knows the person well. A sociopath behaves as if he/she were the only person in the whole world and as if everyone else just existed for their benefit and had no existence in their own right. (4) Sociopaths treat other people as toys and hanker after the power to control and hurt their "nearest and dearest." (5) Many are monumentally self-important: They may pretend to be millionaires, when in reality they are sliding towards financial disaster. (6) Habitual dishonesty."

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_know_if_someone_is_a_sociopath#ixzz2223wHuSZ

You've clearly demonstrated why theocracy is a universally bad idea. Your only standard is "It's true because I believe it and I believe it because I want to believe it, therefore it's true"

I know others have tried to demonstrate it to you and you've dodged it every time, but you simply fail to comprehend what circular logic is and how it's a logical fallacy. You continue to quote the bible as if it's an authoritative source so you're demonstrating your inability to comprehend. deliberately or otherwise You start with a belief you want and work backwards and attempt to make facts fit your belief. It doesn't work that way...it never has

You have every right to your religion, you have every right to vote your religion, but you've demonstrated time and time again precisely why rule by religion is a complete failure.

This thread is a prime example of why I try to not argue with believers.

@shinyblurry: You do not argue a point, you state "facts" that you "know". All your "points" come back to "Because it says so in the bible" -> "The Bible must be true because it's God's word" --> "God's word must be true becuase he says so in the Bible"

It has been argued for centuries by atheists and theist alike. Some of the greatest thinkers that our world knew have tried to argue it and even with the greatest minds of christian theology, the likes of Thomas Aquinas, Agustine of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury etc. etc. etc. it all comes down to the central circular logic fallacy of "There is a god because there is a god"

There is no way to prove the existence of any god. It has been tried for thousands of years and no one has ever acomplished it.

Since every argument in theology derives it's weight from God's existence....

Because the world is full of insane, unreasonable, unintelligible, gullible, maniacal, batshit crazy shinyblurrys who all hear and obey the voices in their Wheaties. Religion, Fascism, Nationalism... all results of the same mentally and reality-deficient group-think. Even the irrational ramblings and regurgitations of low-level, front-line fodder such as yourself should be met with overwhelming and devastating reason and logic, weapons for which you simply have no defense.

I think the definition of insanity is going out of your way to tell someone you're ignoring them (several times), but then constantly send them messages like this. As far as logic and reason go, your entire post here is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad hominem. You've also never once said anything to me without engaging in this fallacious argumentation.

>> ^Fletch

satirical observation-check

people hold different belief systems-check

some atheists are indeed assholes-check


irony how some atheists regard an observation on a minority as to somehow reflect on themselves.that to ridicule one small group of dickweeds somehow represents all atheists-stinks of logical fallacy

or butthurt.

relax kids.pretty sure this aint about you..in particular.
an atheist can be an asshole.
just as a religious person can be an asshole.
the difference is that a religious person can point to a book and relinquish responsibility for being an asshole,while the atheist is just plain being an asshole.

i have far more respect for the asshole atheist who stands up for his right to be an asshole than the religious person too weak to stand proud for his own assholism.

all humans are assholes to varying degrees.
look..im being an asshole right now!
yaaaay for assholes!

If you're asking "Fucking Magnets, how do they work?" in the first place, there is probably some mystery explanation already in your head to explain it. If it's a real question, you can surely google up something to read about that. Whether or not you get good information depends on how much time you put into studying the question. If it's a rhetorical question, you're wasting the time of whoever you've asked by expecting them to take it seriously.

Another good example of this is any discussion with a creationist about evolution. They've heard just enough from pseudo-scientific creationist arguments to know some minor points about evolution, but this comes with misconceptions, flawed arguments, and logical fallacies. When you try to educate these people, you swiftly learn that any attempt to do so is a waste of time and energy. If they really wanted to know they would study for answers, but what they want instead is to shout down the people with the actual knowledge.

I think what Mr. Feynman is saying here is that if you expect to get a good answer to your question, you should study enough so that he won't have to "dumb down" his answer to satisfy you. If you're actually curious about the answer and want to understand it, you'd oblige.

quoting @Chaucer prior to him editing his post:

"Its not racism. Let me give you a hypothetical example that you might be able to understand. Say you are non-jewish but you grew up in an majority jewish community. All your life you were bullied by the jewish people and you've seen your friends bullied by jewish people. Then you see a video about jews and you say, "most jews are bullies" because thats all you know and what you've seen and experienced. You arent saying all jews are that way nor do you carry prejudice against them. Its just the life experience that person has gone through.

Same here. A prerequisite for racism is to say that all of them that way or to carry prejudice or discriminate against that race. Neither of which are in my statement nor intended to be in my statement."

I'm sorry, go look up the definition of racism. Nowhere does it add a caveat of "oh it's ok if your life experiences say otherwise" Your "life experiences" are anecdotal at best and that's ignoring the obvious derogatory slant you put on it. You're digging yourself a bigger hole as you hide behind logical fallacies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Your "life experiences" mean absolutely dick when it comes to actual facts and logic. Prior to Columbus, it was "life experience" that said the world was flat. It was "life experience" that the earth was the center of the universe. It was "life experience" that said slavery was acceptable.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^AeroMechanical:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I'm starting to not get new pop culture references. Does this mean I'm getting old?
http://pinterest.com/

Oh, no. Of course not. It means you are an adult. That usually takes until at least 30 these days at a minimum.
edit: Almost as soon as I wrote that, I realized the logical fallacy. Truth be told, in all likelihood, the 25-year-olds I know today who still play Pokemon and watch Naruto will never really become adults. I suppose maybe that isn't a bad thing though.
So being an adult means you can't like fun stuff any more? Fuck that!


That's about the size of it. Instead, you have to get all excited about mortgage rates and how much your job matches you on your 401K. Then you have kids, which people say is a lot of fun, but looks more like stress and a lot of work to me.

The other day, a friend of mine said he didn't need to smoke ganja any more because when his baby daughter smiles, it's better than any drug. I just about puked.