@SDGundamX

Wow, where to start. Your reply to my latest comment illustrates how you (willingly or ignorantly?) continue to misconstrue the issue, building up strawman after strawman, putting words and notions in Harris' mouth and mine, while ignoring everything I post. And then you post an article that maliciously distorts the views of Harris and Hitchens, depicting them as solely intent on vilifying Islam. If that article really describes what you think than I should probably stop arguing with you and spend my time better, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Yes, I read the book you linked, or at least what the preview offered, which was more than enough to show that it does not go against anything Harris or I argue, only against the strawmen you prop up. A few comments on the book nonetheless:

The introduction (the one not by the book's author) is full of wishy-washy 'everything-and-its-contraire' platitudes, and ironically refers to Muslims as a unified whole, which is exactly what you accuse H. and I of... that's a good start; it's okay to make sweeping generalizations if they're positive? But even this text recognises that the secular influence of the "West" upon Muslim modernists forces them away from the core tenets of Islam and it's sacred text, which then sees the rise of fundamentalist backlash. And then there's this tidbit in the conclusion:

"Muslims, we often forget, do not always act as Muslims or members of a religious community; rather, they respond to economic, social and political needs that may direct conduct more than ideological signposts do."

Well hello captain Obvious! Either he's trying to address Christian right white trash, in which case he should use a bilboard instead of a book (I kid, I kid), or he takes his projected audience for fools. Or maybe he's building up to the sort of strawmen you seem so fond of attacking.

Now to the actual book: the author suggests that the world concentrates on "Arab" Islam, and ignores the rest. Not only is that false (at least where H. and I are concerned), not only does it carry racist undertones (yes, "Arab" is, for lack of a better word, a "race"; "Muslim" is not), but it purposefully ignores that the Middle East is Islam's birthplace, and still regarded as it's "Mecca" (haha). It's fine and dandy to put the blame that it deserves on European colonialism, but the author seems to forget that the spread of Islam is mostly due to, hey, Arabo-Islamic colonisation (and/or military conquest, sometimes with a healthy sprinkling of "cleansing", i.e. persecution of non-muslims 'till there were none left). But hey, Christianity did the same.
A really weird part is when the author somehow turns our quasi-universal use of the "Christian" calender into an illustration of Euro-American "structural violence and hegemony". Wow.
All in all, I learned nothing new whatsoever from what I read of that book, and cannot recommend it.

So there are modern/accomodationist interpretations of the Qur'an and Islamic doctrine? So not all Muslims are crazy male Saladins (I'm not making this up)? No one here is disputing that. So there are also other factors at work here? Not being denied either.

Neither are we arguing that muslims are more likely to commit violence than anyone else. By taking away the bold when citing me, you changed the meaning of the citation, creating one of the strawmen you also use to attack Harris: the key words are "in the name of" (or, to paraphrase "with the justification/motivation" of religion).

What is being argued is that Islam, i.e. the doctrines found in the Qur'an and Hadith, justify - render moral even - actions that are unethical, harmful, violent (the same is true of the Bible, from which Sharia law stems, but it is much less practiced than under Islam). That is why I quote the Qur'an, which - whether you like it or not - constitutes the core of the religion called "Islam" ("submission", btw... a pretty bad start). Nor can you deny that said religion demands that its holy text be considered the infallible and ultimate word of God (33:36). Many Muslims ignore the worser parts? Yay hooray! Doesn't change that some do not.

As for evidence (of which the book you cite, at least the parts accessible to me, contained none), you will never get it from me because you want evidence that supports the strawman arguments you put in H.'s mouth and mine, and there's no way you're getting that from either. What you do get, from the small sample of examples above (in a mess of html, i admit), is evidence that Islam today, more than any other religion, is at the source of (e.g. application of Sharia law) or aggravates (e.g. honour killing, fgm) acts of violence, discrimination and barbarity.

Is the fact that more than half of the active terrorist groups in existence today wear their Islamist agenda proudly, often including it in their name, not "evidency" enough for you?

Is the fact that unethical practices are condoned by Islamic (and almost only Islamic) regimes, even enshrined in civil law (which is also religious law), not evidence of Islam's virulence?

What more do you want? You say "You can't attack the religion without attacking the people who believe in that religion". You, and the author of that pathetic excuse of an article you just linked to, are trying to project a generalising, hate and fear-mongering view on people like Harris and myself, something I find both ignorant and insulting. Of course I can criticise an ideology, warn against its potential (and existing) negative consequences, without targeting every one of its adherents, or even the majority thereof. When Hitchens points out that the idea of vicarious redemption, central to Christianity, is unethical, and the Christian God's treatment of Abraham disgusting, is he saying that all Christian's are unethical and disgusting?

You say: Prove that people in Islamic countries are suffering because of Islam and not because we colonized them, used them as pawns in our own political games, got overthrown or kicked out, then either left them to rot or turned them into our oil suppliers while funding autocratic regimes and looking the other way as they tortured and killed their own people. Prove that it's Islam and not the appalling lack of medical care, education, political access, or access to a reliable legal system that accounts for the violence. Prove that the tenets of Islam are a significant factor in the violence and not just lipservice paid to justify it.

Quite simple really: compare pre-Islamic revolution Iran with post-Islamic revolution Iran. Compare the twin fates of Pakistan and India, the former being "created" as an Islamic nation. Which of the two bears the record for honour killings (the Sihks and Hindus try hard to catch up, I know)? Which of the two was hiding the world's most famous terrorist and Islamic fundamentalist? Which of the two has one of the lowest rates of literacy for women? In which of these two countries, whose post-colonial fate is practically identical, do you have 7/10 chances to be sexually abused in a police station if you are a women? I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Colonialism and its modern forms (globalisation, etc.) have a lot of blame to shoulder, no doubt whatsoever. But that does not diminish in any way the import and effect of Islam's doctrines. Did colonialists invent sharia law, for example, or demand it be enforced? No. Mohamed and his ideology did.
Blaming everything on colonialism and "western" influence is a twisted form of pretentiousness, as if only the "west" could come up with bad stuff. Arabs, Asians, Africans, etc. are people too, they too can be atrocious, it's not just reserved for the whiteys! It's as wrong as blaming slavery entirely on Europe and the American colonies. The slave trade in Africa and the Middle East was going on long before "westerners" became buyers, and guess who was doing the trading?

As long as you insist on blinding yourself to the influence of Islam in the world today, or at least to its negative aspects, you will have a skewed and prejudiced view, exactly what you are accusing others of. Of course it is only one factor among many, but it is an important factor, whether that suits your guilt-by-association-ridden conscience or not.

ah my friend...
remember it was you who asked me to help you understand my faith.
and i did so openly and honestly and with the total understanding that you would wholeheartedly disagree.
were you looking for some form of evidence?
i did not promise you any.
what we have here is a philosophical discussion.
i thought that was something self-evident.
we are discussion an intangible:faith.

reading your response i am puzzled at the volume of presumption based on very little.
much of which i had already addressed.
what were you trying to accomplish in your response?
what was your intent with all this?
i have been open,honest and put myself out there because you were respectful and curious.
i held no illusions you would ever agree with how i viewed things but i did think that maybe if i shared you would at least understand where i was coming from.
and that is always a good thing.

but i have to say for someone so adamant about evidence and research you presume volumes based on little or no information.you took it waaay past what i offered and formulated your own dynamic.
and while it kind of irritates me and i dont feel i should have to point this out,
i shall anyways...just because....

1.(No, I don’t suspect that you are anti-research, I suspect that you don’t value research or the scientific method as much as people should. If you did, you would find no value in faith.)
-i already stated that when new information is gained.the paradigm is changed.of course i value research but maybe i am not as schooled as you.maybe i dont have access or was unaware of certain research.
did this not even occur to you?
then you go on to ostracize EVERYBODY who does not value research the way you do and that if we did we would find no value in faith.then my friend..you dont have the first clue about faith (which means i have failed from the get-go..lol).but has the arrogance of this statement eluded you?you are judging people based on YOUR perceptions.

2.I suspect that you don’t read many science books, if any. I suspect that you don’t follow the most recent information coming out of neural science research labs.
-now on this i will agree.your suspicions would be correct.not because i avoid them but because i dont follow them.my studies are in cultural religious history,american history,world history,US and european governments and comparative religions.(and of course art,poetry and music).
if you have some suggestions and in video format i would be delighted to watch and learn.

3.I suspect that the only research that you are primarily interested in is the kind of research that supports your pre-existing idea of the nature of reality. I suspect that you don’t actually understand the scientific method. I suspect that you’ve never read “The Demon Haunted World”.
-and you base this presumption on what...exactly? when i have clearly stated the opposite.do i need to point out that i am a man of faith who frequents a predominantly atheist web site? i have never even heard of "demon haunted world" what is it about? it sounds interesting.

4.I suspect that you don’t really understand causation verses correlation.
-ok..now you are just being snide.many religious folk fall into this trap..i am not one of them."see? there is your evidence!".i thought you would understand what i was implying.i guess i was wrong.

5.I suspect that you generally aren’t very skeptically minded and that your definition of “evidence” is loosely constructed.
-again.what are you basing this on? because i have faith? is THAT what you are basing this presumption on? i addressed this in my letter to you.

6.I suspect that you aren’t actually doing anything to falsify your beliefs. I suspect that you identify with your beliefs to the degree that if realized that they weren’t true you would feel a sense of loss of personal identity. I suspect that you value any answer, even if it’s potentially incorrect, over no answer at all. I suspect that you would rather believe in “spirit” than to disbelieve it because, as I suspect, it makes you feel good and it gives you the answer that you want.
-are you projecting? or having a conversation with a different person and sent this to me? if my beliefs (which just by using that word means i have utterly failed to convey how i view things)were proven to be false..then they would be false.i would not curl into a ball and cry like a little girl.my faith is expressed through who i am but is not integrally me as a person.my faith is neither stagnant nor static but flows,drifts and morphs as time goes on.and to say how my faith in spirit makes me feel.well you are just guessing based on little or no information.i find this particularly hypocritical of how you present yourself.you have no idea HOW i feel or how i would react if it turns out that there is no spirit.come on man..you are better than this particularly nasty nugget.

7.I suspect that you like the writings of Deepak Chopra and that you probably like movies "The Secret" and "What the Bleep Do We Know". I suspect that you have very little respect for truth and that your beliefs are more about perception rather than what can be known to be factual.
-ok.here is where you literally take the gold for presumption.deepok chopra? really?
let me explain something so we are crystal clear here.every and all of my philosophies have been hard won.while the revelations may have been a gift my understanding of them has taken me on paths and roads you cannot even BEGIN to understand (or maybe you can.my turn to assume).my wisdom has been hard won,epic battles with my own self and the world around me.scars upon scars to garner the wisdom i now hold and the path i walk is a solitary one. NOT one i read from deepok fucking chopra.
i find the sciences fascinating and consume as often as i can with my limited understanding.i wish my curiosity for these things had not blossomed so late in my life but for 12 years i have been absolutely ravenous for information and for you to suggest that somehow i avoid the truth because it may disprove my beliefs..
aw fuck you man..thats hubris times ten and just plain fucking wrong.you are painting a picture on how you perceive me and i gotta tell ya man.that person you are picturing? it aint me.
i am a poet my friend and everything i do,say or relate to is all about the truth.in everything.. and that includes..ESPECIALLY..includes..self deception.
read my poem.its right here on my page under my favorite video.my first published actually.
and you included the SECRET? for real? let me tell ya and i say this often (ask my friends who read that garbage) if i ever meet the authors, i am slapping them dead in the face.may not be the same reason you would but we can do it as a dynamic duo../SMACK.

my friend,
you state the all importance of evidence.the absolute value of truth based on facts and testable results.yet what you have done to here is base your opinion on almost no evidence nor facts.
you have judged me falsely.

now.lets move on to the questions.understand i asked them not looking for the correct answer but rather how you would respond to them.because there really is no "correct" answer,only what we know up to this point.
1.What is ego? I don’t know. I don’t study neurological brain functions as much as I wish I had the time for. The thing is, I’m not the one providing a bunch of nonsense answer about how it’s some sort of separate entity apart from myself, or that it has its own wants and desires part from my own. The burden of proof rests on the person making those claims.
-berticus could answer this more scientifically than i could and since you do not believe in spirit any further discussion would be redundant.
my stance is that the ego is who you THINK you are,not who you actually are.i would elaborate but i dont think you would respect any of my conclusions.which are mostly anecdotal and not actual evidence.

2.What is reality? From Wikipedia “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.” I would use that definition. I would also say that we absolutely can know what is real vs. what is not real by performing rigorous investigations into phenomenon that we observe and that during these investigations we use the scientific method to keep us from lying to ourselves. Contrary to the beliefs of people of “spirituality” and post-modernists, there are things that we can call objectively real and there is such thing as truth, that knowing the truth requires hardcore investigation and that once you know the truth, at least to a very high degree of certainty, you can know what is not true. By definition, reality is the collection of things and phenomenon that are real. Things like fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, gods, etc, aren't known to be real, they don't really exist, they aren't a part of reality. Sure, the idea of those things is real, but those things themselves aren't.
-we dont fully know.that is the correct answer.we only know what we know by our standards and abilities to date.reality keeps becoming more and more grander and complex as we dig deeper and reveal more.this is an ongoing project and the rabbit hole keeps getting deeper.this is something that really excites and fascinates me.look at how much of reality we have uncovered in the past 100 years.dont you find it all fascinating?what was once unknown is becoming known and things never even suspected are becoming possibilities.that is just too awesome.

3.What is consciousness? It sounds as if you’re asking me what consciousness is as if consciousness is a thing. Consciousness isn’t a thing; it’s a bi-product of certain biological systems and it can be affected and manipulated by various means. It’s a collective brain state. Consciousness doesn’t exist somewhere in the universe and we’re interacting with it and even if that were true, there isn’t any actual evidence of that being the case. In humans, it is just the sense of awareness of one’s self with respect to others and of the relationship between the mind and the world that we interact with. You talk about consciousness as if it’s some sort of mystical force; it just sounds like magical thinking, attributing animal qualities to the universe. There is nothing magical or mystical about it. This notion that consciousness and the ego are somehow “outside” of us or separate from who we “are” is just a fantasy similar to fairies and unicorns. I know people that believe in actual fairies, the kind with wings, who control certain aspects of our lives. I put spirituality in the same exact camp as belief in fairies, there just isn’t any evidence that it’s actually true.
-consciousness is a subject that is still discussed in philosophical and theosophical schools.just like the subject of reality we dont fully know.we suspect and there have been great strides in understanding but at the end of the day...still dont really know.and i do not speak of something "outside" sorry if i came across that way.must have been a tad confusing for you,but consciousness is another rabbit hole.the more we learn the bigger the picture gets.which again..fascinates me.if you want to play around with reality and consciousness drop some acid,or mescaline,shrooms even and let creation melt like a chocolate sundae on a hot summers day.there are levels of consciousness and awareness and everybodys is different.theories that plants have a form of consciousness and we all pretty much agree that animals have a consciousness.

4.Who am I? I could say that I am who I define myself to be based on what information that I have about myself combined with the model of myself that is retained in other people’s minds whom I interact with and also the collective actions that I’ve taken and continue to take. It just seems like you’re adding a layer of mysticism over the nature of humans, as if there is something magical about humans over other primates, or other carbon based life forms. Again, there is nothing mystical or magical about who people are.
do you let everyone tell you how to act?
i tease...
this is a very scientific..and BORING... answer.and very,very one dimensional.but it has the value of allowing me a peek into your inner workings.so i thank you.
this is actually an exercise in self-reflection.was meant to make you think about just you and who you were for a second (mostly i get people telling me their occupation).
short..to the point..and very boring.
while we may be more self-aware than other animals i never stated we were magical beings,unless you count my faith in spirit and if thats the case...fair enough.
i am nothing special and hold no hidden secret key to the temples of delight and neither are you.i deal with everybody based on that assumption.

now lets deal with your conclusion:
1.The reason why I suspect that you are not scientifically minded is because you’re prepared to dismiss ongoing research which may or may not be conclusive but you’re willing to provide your own answers and form your own beliefs based on your own subjective experiences.
-where have i dismissed science that has been proven to be factual?or even remotely hinted i was prepared to?where are you getting this from? if i gave you that impression then i apologize because that is not how i view things.
now i shared a very personal revelation with you that i normally do not share.please do not dishonor that trust with contempt or disdain.i understand you do not believe and that is your right but at least respect my offer of something valuable to me,even if it is garbage to you.
this is why it is called "faith" and not "evidence".i did not offer evidence,i offered a revelation given to me which is where my faith resides.and all of our experiences are subjective.

2.What good are those answers if they have no basis in reality. Just because there is no definitive consensus doesn’t mean that you can substitute in your own beliefs. Doing that, in and of itself, is irrational. Everything that you’ve said that you believe in has its basis in magical and wishful thinking, not in science, even though you're using scientific terms (incorrectly I might add).
-again.this is why it is called faith and faith in and of itself is irrational.i do understand these concepts and realize their implications.and whats up with the snide remark about my incorrect usage of scientific terms? then teach me correctly..or are you one of those people that will let a dude walk around with his fly open? come on man...uncalled for.

3.If there isn’t a conclusive answer, than why make one up? The only thing that individualized answers to these questions offers to me is evidence of how scientifically illiterate people actually are. Scientifically literate and rational people don’t answer questions that they don’t have objective and research driven answers to and if they do propose an answer when there isn’t something they can be objectively highly certain of, they submit it as conjecture, a mere hypothesis, very little more than an inconclusive guess.
--again i refer to faith.i get it man.you dont have any unless it is scientifically proven factual.
and most people are scientifically illiterate.you ever think instead of calling them retards (you didnt use those words but you may has well have)that maybe you could help them a bit? maybe share some of your understanding? point them in a direction that may answer their questions?
you are kind of being a douche in this last part,i dont think its intentional,but its very...douchey.
i mean..
you ask me a question.one in which i attempt to answer based on a revelation that was given to me over 30 years ago,and THEN turn around and basically say that im making shit up and that i am scientifically illiterate.
of course i am scientifically illiterate.
i am an ordained minister and a fucking poet!what did you expect?
but i own an insatiable curiosity.
i am constantly prodding the edges of my own understanding and attempting to further my knowledge base.
but i hold no illusions that i knew everything,nor do i look down upon those i disagree with.
i view every interaction as an opportunity to learn.

as i stated earlier.
i offered my faith,not certitude.
if the factual realm of science gives you comfort and makes you smile then i say ..good for you!
and might i suggest you share this passion with others?
i do not know what you meant to accomplish with your letter to me.
its tone is far different than our other transactions and some of its content and wording has me perplexed.
you have never been presumptuous with me before nor have you taken an arrogant tilt.
yet i find both of those in this letter.
meh../shrugs..text lacks the nuances of eye to eye conversation.
and being a person who uses words often i am fully aware of their total inadequacies to express ones thoughts/feelings/dreams at times.

just know that science reveals my understanding of creation to be spot on..
every..single..time.
and if you wish to call "god" the "universe"..
feel free.it is just as appropriate.
my path may be far different from yours but i still think your pretty cool.
while the fundamentalist stagnates in his own certitude..
i do not.
i am just me.
be well my friend.
namaste.

(No, I don’t suspect that you are anti-research, I suspect that you don’t value research or the scientific method as much as people should. If you did, you would find no value in faith. I suspect that you don’t read many science books, if any. I suspect that you don’t follow the most recent information coming out of neural science research labs. I suspect that the only research that you are primarily interested in is the kind of research that supports your pre-existing idea of the nature of reality. I suspect that you don’t actually understand the scientific method. I suspect that you’ve never read “The Demon Haunted World”. I suspect that you don’t really understand causation verses correlation. I suspect that you generally aren’t very skeptically minded and that your definition of “evidence” is loosely constructed. I suspect that you aren’t actually doing anything to falsify your beliefs. I suspect that you identify with your beliefs to the degree that if realized that they weren’t true you would feel a sense of loss of personal identity. I suspect that you value any answer, even if it’s potentially incorrect, over no answer at all. I suspect that you would rather believe in “spirit” than to disbelieve it because, as I suspect, it makes you feel good and it gives you the answer that you want. I suspect that you like the writings of Deepak Chopra and that you probably like movies "The Secret" and "What the Bleep Do We Know". I suspect that you have very little respect for truth and that your beliefs are more about perception rather than what can be known to be factual.

What is ego? I don’t know. I don’t study neurological brain functions as much as I wish I had the time for. The thing is, I’m not the one providing a bunch of nonsense answer about how it’s some sort of separate entity apart from myself, or that it has its own wants and desires part from my own. The burden of proof rests on the person making those claims.

What is reality? From Wikipedia “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.” I would use that definition. I would also say that we absolutely can know what is real vs. what is not real by performing rigorous investigations into phenomenon that we observe and that during these investigations we use the scientific method to keep us from lying to ourselves. Contrary to the beliefs of people of “spirituality” and post-modernists, there are things that we can call objectively real and there is such thing as truth, that knowing the truth requires hardcore investigation and that once you know the truth, at least to a very high degree of certainty, you can know what is not true. By definition, reality is the collection of things and phenomenon that are real. Things like fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, gods, etc, aren't known to be real, they don't really exist, they aren't a part of reality. Sure, the idea of those things is real, but those things themselves aren't.

What is consciousness? It sounds as if you’re asking me what consciousness is as if consciousness is a thing. Consciousness isn’t a thing; it’s a bi-product of certain biological systems and it can be affected and manipulated by various means. It’s a collective brain state. Consciousness doesn’t exist somewhere in the universe and we’re interacting with it and even if that were true, there isn’t any actual evidence of that being the case. In humans, it is just the sense of awareness of one’s self with respect to others and of the relationship between the mind and the world that we interact with. You talk about consciousness as if it’s some sort of mystical force; it just sounds like magical thinking, attributing animal qualities to the universe. There is nothing magical or mystical about it. This notion that consciousness and the ego are somehow “outside” of us or separate from who we “are” is just a fantasy similar to fairies and unicorns. I know people that believe in actual fairies, the kind with wings, who control certain aspects of our lives. I put spirituality in the same exact camp as belief in fairies, there just isn’t any evidence that it’s actually true.

Who am I? I could say that I am who I define myself to be based on what information that I have about myself combined with the model of myself that is retained in other people’s minds whom I interact with and also the collective actions that I’ve taken and continue to take. It just seems like you’re adding a layer of mysticism over the nature of humans, as if there is something magical about humans over other primates, or other carbon based life forms. Again, there is nothing mystical or magical about who people are.

The reason why I suspect that you are not scientifically minded is because you’re prepared to dismiss ongoing research which may or may not be conclusive but you’re willing to provide your own answers and form your own beliefs based on your own subjective experiences. What good are those answers if they have no basis in reality. Just because there is no definitive consensus doesn’t mean that you can substitute in your own beliefs. Doing that, in and of itself, is irrational. Everything that you’ve said that you believe in has its basis in magical and wishful thinking, not in science, even though you're using scientific terms (incorrectly I might add). If there isn’t a conclusive answer, than why make one up? The only thing that individualized answers to these questions offers to me is evidence of how scientifically illiterate people actually are. Scientifically literate and rational people don’t answer questions that they don’t have objective and research driven answers to and if they do propose an answer when there isn’t something they can be objectively highly certain of, they submit it as conjecture, a mere hypothesis, very little more than an inconclusive guess.

P.S. I agree that Freud is now useless in the light of research from cognitive sciences. The reason for this is primarily because his conclusions were based on subjective and anecdotal information.

P.P.S. In the other comment you talked about your definition of god as being all of the particles and the material in the universe, basically, you're saying that the universe is god. Why not just call the universe the universe rather than attaching something unnecessary to it. I realize that you probably like to look at it that way, that the universe is god but that really isn't necessary and in a way, it isn't very helpful either.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
do you suspect that i am somehow anti-research?
on the contrary my friend.research is the very thing that proves my premise concerning our curiosity and drive to know.the very "spirit" or essence of what i am trying to convey.
do you think that i am fearful that maybe research and a desire for the truth may prove my thesis wrong?
why would i be fearful?
i make only claims of faith not of certitude.
i hold no illusions that my faith can be certified by any verifiable means and hence a main reason why i do not espouse some hidden truth and force others to respect or believe my conclusions.
thats religions job,not mine.

let me ask you these questions:
what is ego?
what is reality?
what is consciousness?
WHO are YOU?

please do not answer with a scientific paper because none of these questions have been answered adequately.they are an ongoing investigation and there has been no definative concensus.
but they are worthy questions,maybe the most important of all questions.
i guess that is relative.
i find them to be very important questions and the answers on an individual basis reveal much about that person.

ps:freud was a cunt.avoid using him as a basis for the ego.his work concerning that particular dynamic has already been eviscerated.

Relevant:

http://videosift.com/video/Sometimes-there-s-a-man-The-Big-Lebowski

>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^undefined:
For me, the comedy lies in the parody of post-modernist fucktards who are too lazy/stupid to come up with their own train of thought, and discards all your arguments with a condescending "That's just your opinion.", with the subtext "and your opinion is wrong while mine is right, and I don't have to explain why."
Not that The Dude thinks that far, of course. He is just intellectually lazy. But he is a man for his time and place.
>> ^rychan:
I actually never understood the appeal of this scene. Maybe I'm stupid and missing something obvious, but what makes this funny? Is it an anti-comedy type thing? As if he's setting up for some great comeback but has nothing?


Yeah, well, it's also the overuse of filler words, such as "like", "uhh", "yeah", "well", "man", "dude" and "fuck", that makes this (and other similar quotes) funny. Having grown up in Southern California, this line like pretty much sums up, you know, like the faults in, uhh, my own accent, man.
Also, as you pointed out Ornthoron, the borrowing of cliche lines from external sources is an important part of the humor, which becomes even more apparent when the Dude hears Bush Sr. on television say, "This will not stand", then later uses the same line in a conversation with the Big Lebowski.
Great flick. Absurd but also very subtle humor.

>> ^undefined:

For me, the comedy lies in the parody of post-modernist fucktards who are too lazy/stupid to come up with their own train of thought, and discards all your arguments with a condescending "That's just your opinion.", with the subtext "and your opinion is wrong while mine is right, and I don't have to explain why."
Not that The Dude thinks that far, of course. He is just intellectually lazy. But he is a man for his time and place.
>> ^rychan:
I actually never understood the appeal of this scene. Maybe I'm stupid and missing something obvious, but what makes this funny? Is it an anti-comedy type thing? As if he's setting up for some great comeback but has nothing?



Yeah, well, it's also the overuse of filler words, such as "like", "uhh", "yeah", "well", "man", "dude" and "fuck", that makes this (and other similar quotes) funny. Having grown up in Southern California, this line like pretty much sums up, you know, like the faults in, uhh, my own accent, man.

Also, as you pointed out Ornthoron, the borrowing of cliche lines from external sources is an important part of the humor, which becomes even more apparent when the Dude hears Bush Sr. on television say, "This will not stand", then later uses the same line in a conversation with the Big Lebowski.

Great flick. Absurd but also very subtle humor.

For me, the comedy lies in the parody of post-modernist fucktards who are too lazy/stupid to come up with their own train of thought, and discards all your arguments with a condescending "That's just your opinion.", with the subtext "and your opinion is wrong while mine is right, and I don't have to explain why."

Not that The Dude thinks that far, of course. He is just intellectually lazy. But he is a man for his time and place.
>> ^rychan:

I actually never understood the appeal of this scene. Maybe I'm stupid and missing something obvious, but what makes this funny? Is it an anti-comedy type thing? As if he's setting up for some great comeback but has nothing?

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Well, seems AnimalsForCrackers once again downvotes my comments for what? Not sure. But since you downvote every comment I make, I have a few theories... You must love to beat off to downvoting my comments... Or, as you sacrafice babies born to religious parents, with coat hangers through their eyes, you must be praying to the Atheist god of reason... No? Not there yet? Or perhaps I am a more understanding Atheist and that drives you to prove yourself?
All hyperbole aside... What I find funny Animals, is that your opinion (Blame religion for every human woe in the world,) is dying here on the sift. Why? Because it is extreme and holds no place in reason. Grow up and stop being the 13 year old you are acting like. I promise to do the same in kind. Because, just stooping to your level makes me feel dirty.

You impertinent, lying fuckstick. I downvoted because I disagreed with your use of post-modernist relativism and the whole freedom = bad mantra, I don't need to give a fucking explanation to downvote someone I disagree with. Downvotes must really piss you the fuck off to elicit such a response. "Wah wah! I was downvoted! I do declare I might be coming down with a case of the vapors!" They are a part of the site, and should be used more than they are when expressing disapproval of a comment, in my opinion. Learn to get over it, everyone else does.
What I don't see others doing is calling someone out for an individual downvote and then claiming the downvoter is the one who is acting like a child while lying and strawmanning in an attempt to prove it. Project on, my friend, project on! <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">
"Blame religion for every human woe"? I cannot even think of one person who wasn't a flyby troll who has done that here, let alone myself! Nice picture of the Sift that you're painting for us all. "Downvote your every [BOLDED FOR EMPHASIS, yours, mind you] comment"? Well then, if you went out of your way to bold that one word then it must mean you are like really super duper serious! Make a Sift Talk, thems grounds for bannination, we've seen many come and go for that offense. Unfortunately you are a liar, and this is easy for anyone to verify. If you could kindly quote where I have said that or show that I have downvoted anywhere approaching ALL(a few comments = all in Lawdeedaw world) of yours comments, that'd be great. Please get back to me on that, okay, cupcake? <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif">
Have any more words to put into my mouth? Fuck off with your dishonesty.


Touchy.

Your opinions are valid about revisionism, even if you can never prove them. They are yours, so keep them and try to explain them. I simply would rather have a debate of reason, something none can do while calling each other names, than a click of a down-arrow and you occasionally saying somehting like, "You are wrong Law, you take the pussy way out and do not blame religion at all."

I do not mind a downvote, in fact I have been downvoted by many and am fine-as-peach-wine with those downvotes---but when they grow to "Oh, another downvote by, I wonder who? Oh, its Animals again, surprise surprise," I stop finding it amusing.

I was not even offended by you at first, and took many of your downvotes casually.

Further, I only bolded "Every" because bold is a function on the sift and just like a "downvote," I think it should be used more often. Thanks for unintentionally pointing that out Animals! Learn to get over it please.

Oh, and I clearly stated that blaming religion for every woe was a dying horse on the Sift. I congradulated and congradulate the entire Sift again.

Addionally, I clearly stated that I was using hyperbole(I.E using hyperbole) when I was making the assertions about you "Downvoting ALL," my comments. That makes the statements satire, like the comedy Lewis Black uses... And since I stated they were blown outlandishly out of proportion, everyone knew they were intentionally ficticous. In short, I did not lie, nor did I insult you with a personal attack---I made a clear joke. Kind of like when you were joking (I assume) and called me an "impertinent, lying fuckstick." If you were not joking there, I am sorry I assumed you were; however, I would like you to prove that I am indeed a "fuckstick." And since fuckstick is a made up word, good luck with that.

Also, since we are speaking of Sift Talk and being 100% accurate, prove to me where I am actually a "cupcake" as you stated. The definition of cupcake follows;
"1. a small cake, the size of an individual portion, baked in a cup-shaped mold.
2. Older Slang .
a. a sexually attractive young woman.
b. a beloved girl or woman." (Dictionary Reference)

This is, by definition, the equivilent of calling me a transvestite (Although there is nothing wrong with being a transvesite, I am not a transvestite,) and I would like veryfiable evidence that I am indeed a woman in a man's body. Either that, or you were calling me a food product, which I doubt I am.

After all, since we want to be 100% correct in ALL statements, get back with me on that. Either that, or you lied, and never made it clear you were joking. Which makes them lies.

Threats aside (I find them amusing) it seems, with your diatribe, that you took far more offense to my comments than I to your downvote. Because I am so offense, I am stopping here. Lawdeedaw out.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Well, seems AnimalsForCrackers once again downvotes my comments for what? Not sure. But since you downvote every comment I make, I have a few theories... You must love to beat off to downvoting my comments... Or, as you sacrafice babies born to religious parents, with coat hangers through their eyes, you must be praying to the Atheist god of reason... No? Not there yet? Or perhaps I am a more understanding Atheist and that drives you to prove yourself?
All hyperbole aside... What I find funny Animals, is that your opinion (Blame religion for every human woe in the world,) is dying here on the sift. Why? Because it is extreme and holds no place in reason. Grow up and stop being the 13 year old you are acting like. I promise to do the same in kind. Because, just stooping to your level makes me feel dirty.


You impertinent, lying fuckstick. I downvoted because I disagreed with your use of post-modernist relativism and the whole freedom = bad mantra, I don't need to give a fucking explanation to downvote someone I disagree with. Downvotes must really piss you the fuck off to elicit such a response. "Wah wah! I was downvoted! I do declare I might be coming down with a case of the vapors!" They are a part of the site, and should be used more than they are when expressing disapproval of a comment, in my opinion. Learn to get over it, everyone else does.

What I don't see others doing is calling someone out for an individual downvote and then claiming the downvoter is the one who is acting like a child while lying and strawmanning in an attempt to prove it. Project on, my friend, project on!

"Blame religion for every human woe"? I cannot even think of one person who wasn't a flyby troll who has done that here, let alone myself! Nice picture of the Sift that you're painting for us all. "Downvote your every [BOLDED FOR EMPHASIS, yours, mind you] comment"? Well then, if you went out of your way to bold that one word then it must mean you are like really super duper serious! Make a Sift Talk, thems grounds for bannination, we've seen many come and go for that offense. Unfortunately you are a liar, and this is easy for anyone to verify. If you could kindly quote where I have said that or show that I have downvoted anywhere approaching ALL(a few comments = all in Lawdeedaw world) of yours comments, that'd be great. Please get back to me on that, okay, cupcake?

Have any more words to put into my mouth? Fuck off with your dishonesty.

I am not so sure either. Crake is clearly a modernist with an agenda.

This seems to be a take on people who are happily ignorant. Ignorance is not quite the same as POSTMODERN ignorance. Like, right???

kulpims is proud of being stoned at work while writing bad post modernist poetry elaborating on his fear of the industrialization of the world. This is all evident in his sole blog posting: http://jazz.videosift.com/member/kulpims/blog

He's also one of those annoying brats who doesn't capitalize words at the start of sentences. stupid.

imstellar you read too much modernist bullshit. seriously. i love you for it, but you do.

*books from the modernist world;
I refrain from invoking eia

TAYTV, onegai!
Hai!

A negative review of the new lights, when they were being tested - this is the text from the "second story" in the summary.


If you like Honda Civics modded with blue neon, enormous spoilers and V-Tech stickers, you're gonna love what's happening to Toronto's most iconic structure.

Management of Canada's National Tower (formerly the Canadian National Tower) have begun testing the unfortunate new animated LEDs that were recently installed, dramatically transforming a brilliant exercise in modernist subtlety into a cheap, plastic martini spear. The "intelligent LED" colour effects will permanently go live after a launch event at sunset on June 28.

Environmentally, the new lighting system uses 10% less energy than conventional illumination (and 60% less than the previous dimly-lit setup, which was dismantled in 1996). The 1,330 LED panels are each about the size of a shoebox and the system is designed by Color Kinetics of Boston. The panels are located up the central shaft windows, at the base of each tier of the upper mast, and around the "bubble" beneath the Sky Pod.

The lighting effects are microprocessor controlled and can be animated in psychedelic patterns and in virtually any combination of colours. Last night's gaudy, rapidly-changing colours alarmed many Torontonians, though CN Tower management claims the lighting will be more subtle and won't be shifting as rapidly as it has been during testing.

We'll see about that. We think that whatever happens in Vegas should stay in Vegas.


Since installation I've found them to look really cool, giving new 'visual life' to the venerable tower.

I don't understand the attraction of such extreme forms of modernism. While modernists such as Stravinsky bring fresh, new ideas to the field, there is such thing as going too far. I think this kind of thing is more of an avant garde/postmodernist style, and those generally push a bit far into the extremes. (Atonal "music" is an example.)
In the end, such extremes often take something that's potentially beautiful and turn it into something rather ugly. (In my eyes . . .)

Right now, Islam has been hi-jacked by militants and murderers. They follow their religion's edicts no more truly than Christians followed the teachings of the Bible during the Crusades, but they're it.

I could be wrong, but lone moderate voices like yours, gwaan, would be snuffed out in Islamic countries.

I urge anyone who wants to study the Qu'ran to study it. Then open your eyes and see what Islam hath wrought on the world, both good and bad. Are people in Islamic countries freer, happier, wealthier than their Western counterparts?

gwaan, you may get pissed off at me from time to time but you know I'm every bit as sincere as you. You are in the unenviable position of defending the indefensible. It would be great to see an uprising of modernist Muslims who want peace, but it's not happening.

I think it's nice that swampgirl chose to look for positives. But it's a question of timing. Japan had a noble culture but there was no use in admiring it during WW2.

I see little merit in looking for the positives of a hi-jacked religion in violent competition with other religions. Hindus and Buddhists aren't strapping on bombs.

If I be a "monster" then it's in order to fight monsters.

9-11 is the face of Islam in America. Good luck with the PR, my friend.

PS "gorillman?" More like little, poop-flinging monkey, not worth cranking the handle on the organ to watch it dance.