I have the same information as you, so there are limits!

Approximately one third (32.4% in 2012) of Norway's prisoners are foreigners, so it is statistically possible to end up with a 20% rate consisting of a 50% rate among foreigners and 5% among locals, I consider it both a little unlikely, and hardly a damning indictment of the system even if that is the case.

The english language section of the Norwegian Correctional Services web site does mention the challenges they face in trying to rehabilitate foreign prisoners:

This presents a number of challenges for the staff as to language, religion and culture. In addition, a part of this category consists of more or less professional criminal offenders with a certain degree of organization who may be responsible for security problems, criminal activity in or from prison and recruitment of young offenders. Visiting facilities and rehabilitation measures are much harder or impossible to create for offenders who will be deported to their home country after serving their sentence.

The followup is linked above, but nothing came of it... no information was provided and in fact they were robbed again shortly afterwards.

Do you think the NSA should monitor North Korean internet activity?

Is your argument that no information should be gathered on people that pose legitimate harm US citizens?

Its not a dilemma for me, I know exactly as much as you, or anybody else do about god: Nothing.

All you can say here is that you don't know anything about God. If you don't know anything about God, then how can you know what anyone else knows about God?

Remember, I'm not the one who believes in imaginary things.

You seem to state here that your assumption that God is imaginary is a fact, which is just the same as merely imagining something is true.

The fact that people like you THINK you can no something and comfortably believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence, is first and foremost YOUR problem.

There are good reasons as to why someone could believe in a God, but I wouldn't believe in a God based on those reasons alone. I believe in God because of personal revelation. The scripture says that this is the way that God reveals Himself to everyone. My question to you is, could God reveal Himself in such a way to you that you could be certain that He is?

When it comes to grounds for making knowledge claims, well, in my view knowledge, like the universe and life itself, is a bottoms up thing, we start at zero, and then build gradually on sound arguments and evidence. Like Carl Sagan once put it: "science is a candle in the dark" and that candle is shining ever brighter. Newton said he was standing on the shoulders of giants, and now we can stand on Newtons shoulders and see even farther.

My question to you here is, how do you ever get past zero? The ground of the sound arguments and evidence that you're perceiving is your own reasoning power. How do you justify your reasoning as being sound without using circular reasoning?

I answer the question about whether there is a god in exactly the same way as I would about santa clause. I'm pretty sure, based on the aforementioned hard-earned knowledge we do have, combined with the fact that we have NO information suggesting there might be one, that there isnt one. But at the same time I recognize that we cannot be absolutely certain. I do regard it as a fact as good as any that there is no god.

There isn't a good reason to believe Santa Claus exists but there are good reasons to believe that the Universe was created by an all powerful being. The idea of God has explanatory power. The very question of whether the Universe has an intelligent causation is a rational question. My question to you is, how would you tell the difference as to whether the Universe was or wasn't designed? How could you tell which Universe you lived in?

Its not a dilemma for me, I know exactly as much as you, or anybody else do about god: Nothing.

Remember, I'm not the one who believes in imaginary things.

The fact that people like you THINK you can no something and comfortably believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence, is first and foremost YOUR problem.

When it comes to grounds for making knowledge claims, well, in my view knowledge, like the universe and life itself, is a bottoms up thing, we start at zero, and then build gradually on sound arguments and evidence. Like Carl Sagan once put it: "science is a candle in the dark" and that candle is shining ever brighter. Newton said he was standing on the shoulders of giants, and now we can stand on Newtons shoulders and see even farther.

I answer the question about whether there is a god in exactly the same way as I would about santa clause. I'm pretty sure, based on the aforementioned hard-earned knowledge we do have, combined with the fact that we have NO information suggesting there might be one, that there isnt one. But at the same time I recognize that we cannot be absolutely certain. I do regard it as a fact as good as any that there is no god.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

Old hag ought to know what a Communist is, you lived through the Cold War and apparently learned nothing. Perhaps we need a new phrase, we have Low Information Voter, maybe we need "No Information Voter" or "Bullshit Mountain Voter."


That's not surprising since they Soviet Union wasn't Communist in the traditional sense at all.

Old hag ought to know what a Communist is, you lived through the Cold War and apparently learned nothing. Perhaps we need a new phrase, we have Low Information Voter, maybe we need "No Information Voter" or "Bullshit Mountain Voter."

I'm sorry, man...I just don't get what you're trying to say. It looks like you're trying to shoe-horn an agenda — albeit an honorable one — on a video about poor sportsmanship.

Maybe we should be made more aware of the reality of kids' concussions. I would have to do more research though because that NPR article has NO information as to where the "estimated" number comes from. I hate to be that guy, but honestly, that guy is why we know that the earth is a sphere and it travels around the sun...you can't just believe everything you read.

Assuming that it's close to correct...or even if the actual number is 25% of all pre-college football players have experienced concussions, then I would agree that something should be done to fix it. But, like I said, this isn't a video about kids getting concussions, nor is it a video about bounty-gate. The fact of the matter is that those things are bad — hence why people have been fired/suspended. Despite the physical nature of the sport, the intent to maliciously hurt somebody is frowned-upon by a majority of the NFL. There is a big difference between seeing a good solid hit between the numbers, wrapping up the player, and taking him to the ground, and taking out his knee cap. I don't see what's hard to understand about that.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

@rottenseed
You're inventing a narrative of what I've said that isn't consistent with reality.
I never said I didn't like football.
I never said I no one should play it.
I never said everyone had to adopt my point of view.
I never said kids are playing football against their will.
I did say that the certainty of concussions is reason enough not to play.
I did cite statistics about concussions that happen to adolescents PRE-college
"of the nearly 5 million adolescents playing football below the college level, it's estimated that half have sustained concussions, a third of them on multiple occasions"
From: http://www.npr.org/2012/05/09/152250525/mind-games-football-and-h
ead-injuries
Stop being a pussy and let that virulent feeling of bloodlust wash over you when those players go down. As you said, they're paid as much as they are because they know the risks involved. If that's the case, this should be celebrated as part of the game, no?
I'm arguing for safety, but I'm a pussy. And you're arguing for the game, but dont want players to get hurt. I'm sure the Saints bounty scandal was limited to that team and nothing like that happens anywhere else. Oh wait... http://www.myfoxny.com/story/19667323/calif-kids-footbal
l-team-hit-with-bounty-scandal
Cheer for the injuries that are part of this culture or call for better safety, I say.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that it was a bit of an assumption to say that decay was constant, lets just linger with that idea for a second. We see some decay happen, and we assume its contant backwards in time. well what would be the alternative? Well, a non-constant decay, of course. The problem is just that we have no information, that is, no evidence, that the rate of decay has ever, or even can, change. Worse still, since there is no evidence, we cant say how the rate has changed. Is it decaying slower and slower, (which would imply a younger universe) or faster and faster (which would imply an even older universe) or does it fluctuate wildly? There is of course no way to tell, except to concede that there is no evidence for any of these three scenarios. According you Young Earth Creationists, the earth is something like 6-12000 years old, which would mean a MASSIVE, impossibly weird and complicated, and seemingly undetectable deceleration in the rate of decay of all known elements. Worse still, in order for the math to work out, all the different elements would decelerate at different rates, for some, again, inexplicable reason. And again, without this being detected by todays best scientists.

Are these the worst scientists then?

http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/decay-detector-gives-solar-flare-alert/

You should be careful not to let yourself become blinded by conventional wisdom. Why shouldn't you suspect that decay rates could change? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


Talk about making assumptions, about having faith All in order to make a magic book remain magic.

Oh well.

It doesn't sound like you read my comment. I changed my mind, not in spite of the evidence, but because of it. I was perfectly fine with being a theistic evolutionist.


But of course, thats just be beginning, because it just so happens that the assumption we made (that the rate of decay is constant) lines up pretty damn nicely with other known facts about the universe, like how big it is, what stars are made of, how massive they are how long they have burned, how the whole universe is expanding, how tectonic plates move, how animals evolved,

Yes, you're right, it lines up just fine with all of the other giant assumptions that have been made about how the Universe was formed, because they are all predicated on the basal assumption of deep time, and conversely, they are all used to support that assumption of deep time. It's quite a racket they have going, where the evidence is interpreted by the conclusion. Last time I checked that wasn't science.

how fossils were buried by Satan to fool us all laid down in order over the eons, genetic diversity and the relationships and relatedness of all living things.

Do you know the geologic column doesn't actually exist in reality? It doesn't sound like you do, if you think it's all laid down in a neat little order like you see in the text book. The truth is, the geologic column is entirely theoretical. You don't find it anywhere on Earth. What you do find is various layers here and there, and what they assume is that layer a is the same as layer b if they find the same fossils in them. The depths you see in the various layers of the column does not reflect reality. You can find Cambrian fossils 10 feet down in some areas, so if you went by physical depth, you can say in some instances Cambrian was planted last and not first. The amount of circular reasoning employed to describe the geologic column is astounding.

Another question is, do you understand flood geology? Please read what we actually believe before you criticize it:

http://creationwiki.org/Flood_geology


It all pans out pretty fucking nicely to an emerging picture of a universe thats 13.72 billion years old, and an earth that is about 4.6 billion years old.

But I guess all these aligning scientific facts make the baby jesus sad and must be ignored, or at least made out by believers to be "based on faith" (The very thing that, by definition, underpins the entire worldview of a believer!) So that they can dismiss it because its just faith. Oh the irony, it burns.

As I said to someone else, if you're already committed to materialist explanations, it doesn't sound like a big leap. To someone who isn't so committed, it is a bigger leap than it might appear to you. I was willing to reinterpret my understanding of Gods word for what science had to say, and still am, but not for a mountain of circumstantial evidence and a just-so story to tie it all together.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan

@shinyblurry said:
1. Constant decay rate
2. Ratio of daughter to natural
3. Beginning conditions known
4. No leaching or addition of parent
5. No leaching or addition of daughter
6. All assumptions valid for billions of years

If all of those assumptions are valid, the date can be trusted. The problem is that there is no way to determine whether all of those assumptions are true or not. And that is, if there were just one date. The experiment actually gives a range of dates, which is then further interpreted by what is called "field relationships" between the rocks. There are many technical problems with this, but I won't get into them here. There is also the problem that different dating methods give different results for the same rock, and that when we measure things we know the age of, we get incorrect dates. If we get incorrect dates for things we know the age of, why should we trust the dates it gives for things we don't?

Uh, things like constant decay rate is fare more than an assumption, and it certainly requires no form of faith to be believed in. Sure , we werent standing by actually watching the decay taking place for billions of years, but you know we have things like chemistry and physics where people have studied the properties of atoms and particles and figured out mathematically, and confirmed experimentally, the stability of different isotope-configurations This isnt a mystery or magic anymore, people know this stuff. Read some quantum chemistry that Kent Hovind didnt write.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that it was a bit of an assumption to say that decay was constant, lets just linger with that idea for a second. We see some decay happen, and we assume its contant backwards in time. well what would be the alternative? Well, a non-constant decay, of course. The problem is just that we have no information, that is, no evidence, that the rate of decay has ever, or even can, change. Worse still, since there is no evidence, we cant say how the rate has changed. Is it decaying slower and slower, (which would imply a younger universe) or faster and faster (which would imply an even older universe) or does it fluctuate wildly? There is of course no way to tell, except to concede that there is no evidence for any of these three scenarios. According you Young Earth Creationists, the earth is something like 6-12000 years old, which would mean a MASSIVE, impossibly weird and complicated, and seemingly undetectable deceleration in the rate of decay of all known elements. Worse still, in order for the math to work out, all the different elements would decelerate at different rates, for some, again, inexplicable reason. And again, without this being detected by todays best scientists.Talk about making assumptions, about having faith All in order to make a magic book remain magic.

Oh well.

But of course, thats just be beginning, because it just so happens that the assumption we made (that the rate of decay is constant) lines up pretty damn nicely with other known facts about the universe, like how big it is, what stars are made of, how massive they are how long they have burned, how the whole universe is expanding, how tectonic plates move, how animals evolved, how fossils were buried by Satan to fool us all laid down in order over the eons, genetic diversity and the relationships and relatedness of all living things. It all pans out pretty fucking nicely to an emerging picture of a universe thats 13.72 billion years old, and an earth that is about 4.6 billion years old.

But I guess all these aligning scientific facts make the baby jesus sad and must be ignored, or at least made out by believers to be "based on faith" (The very thing that, by definition, underpins the entire worldview of a believer!) So that they can dismiss it because its just faith. Oh the irony, it burns.

As I think it's relevant to the discussion and it was left as a little quasi threat on my profile.

In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
Disagree with what ? your intent or interpretation of the events in the video are completely void because of this statement " Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera. ?

Is clearly is in violation of the posted rules. I'd make a big stink about it if it was 2 pm and not 2 am. I'll do it in the morning


Please do make a big stink, this site has a lot of rules that don't get enforced until someone gets a bug up their ass about it. And without enforcement whose to know what videos are allowed or not when my video CLOSELY resembles some of the videos I've linked below. And I'll say right now that you putting extra tags on my video was in poor taste and mocks the events of the video. I don't think you are the right person to be making judgements on my videos when you can mock the video with those tags.


These are the videos I found in the first 20 pages of the "death" channel.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Rare-amateur-video-of-Challenger-disaster-25-years-later - Has a short intro screen and a exit screen. No news coverage, no documentary claims. It would fall under your rule, yet it's been voted very high up there and no one complained.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Destroyed-In-Seconds - This video was taken down by youtube because it showed a guy dieing in it. The comments on THIS SITE even reflect it. No one ever questioned it.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Marines-Urinate-on-Dead-Afghans - I can't confirm those men on the ground are dieing or dead. It shows corpses, wounds and all being defiled for ENTERTAINMENT of the troops. I'd classify this as snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Footage-of-Perm-Nightclub-Fire - Shows a building where 100+ people died.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Indy-500-winner-killed-in-15-car-accident - Shows the tv footage of a car crash where the driver died. No informative news network or documentary. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Deadly-plane-crash-at-Reno-Nevada-air-show - Shows a plane crash, no news or documentary. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Molten-metal-seen-dripping-moments-before-WTC2-collapses - Shows footage of WTC where we know people were dieing inside. We can't see them dieing, but that rule still applies. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Lucky-Montana-Cop-Escapes-Death - Police office shoots a man to death. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Main-Stage-collapses-at-Indiana-State-Fair Stage collapses people die. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Sigh-police-beat-a-man-dead - Police kill a guy on film. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Craziest-and-most-awesome-animal-compilations-of-the-web - I didn't watch this one all the way through. Video Submitter claims death occurs in it. Could be animal, could be people. You watch it and decide if it's snuff...I saw some animals attacking people but never saw the outcome to tell if they were dead or not.

I don't think you quite understand the mechanics of conception... Just because there's semen in a woman doesn't mean she's conceived. Emergency contraceptives are no different than birth control. They prevent conception from happening. >> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^CaptainPlanet:
>> ^Porksandwich:
I never took the person's pulse before I stabbed them, so you can't prove they were alive. So it's not murder.
Can't eliminate all grey areas under a law, because you need to make an exemption for when someone you know or a big donator needs to skate on something. IE his daughter or grand-daughter gets pregnant by a black man.

a guess your joking, but i don't get it. if your trying to imply that abortion is murder i have to agree, but its a stretch to say that we live in a society that never condones murder.... actually i think your just being an idiot

Ron Paul states that he believes life begins at conception. And prior to this he says that there is no chemical, medical, legal evidence of a pregnancy when administering the treatment to stop the progression of possible conception.
I liken that to saying that you could justify murder by arguing that you have no reason to believe the guy didn't die of natural causes a split second before he was shot/stabbed/ran over. So while it would have been murder, you can't 100% prove due to lack of chemical, medical and legal evidence that he was expired mere seconds before I would have killed him. So at best I stabbed/shot/ran over a corpse that hadn't hit the ground yet.
And I agree, that does sound idiotic.
In the case of someone having a natural death right before something that would have otherwise killed them, they would argue that you intended to kill the guy and ended all chances of him being saved from the natural causes (heart attack, brain bleed, whatever) by your actions. It's more about the intent. If you are giving someone drugs/treatments to abort or prevent any possible pregnancy after the fact, your intent is clear. If you were pregnant you aborted it, if you were not the treatment was unnecessary....but the intent was still the same.
It's an argument basically boils down to: It's an abortion, only if you can prove they were pregnant. But there is no other reason to perform it besides the chance of pregnancy. So why is it not abortion/attempted abortion when the intent is there? And how can he say life begins at conception, but then do these procedures that are designed to prevent or end conceptions before they are legally, medically, and chemically provable?

It's a half joking, devil's advocate kind of argument. We don't give our ages from the day we were conceived, but we definitely begin life prior to our "birth day". So there needs to be a upper limit instated by law, and a general understanding that the doctors and clinics should make sure all information and choices are presented before doing anything permanent. It should definitely not be a spur of the moment choice, where a patient can walk in to a doctor with no previous discussion and say they want an abortion and have it carried out with no information to other options. Once presented with the options, and as long as it's under the legal time limit window, then I don't think anyone can say it should have been any other way than the people involved in it.
I don't technically have a problem with what Ron Paul is saying here, but he states something contrary to his own beliefs. 7 months is probably too far along, the kid could probably survive outside of the mother's body at that point. But if he believes birth begins at conception, doing things to prevent conception that ALSO ends conception and justifying it as no medical/legal/chemical proof of conception....that's just hypocritical.
That kind of grey area lurking to satiate the need for abortions, but still sticking to your hardline statements is chicken shit justification.

>> ^CaptainPlanet:

>> ^Porksandwich:
I never took the person's pulse before I stabbed them, so you can't prove they were alive. So it's not murder.
Can't eliminate all grey areas under a law, because you need to make an exemption for when someone you know or a big donator needs to skate on something. IE his daughter or grand-daughter gets pregnant by a black man.

a guess your joking, but i don't get it. if your trying to imply that abortion is murder i have to agree, but its a stretch to say that we live in a society that never condones murder.... actually i think your just being an idiot


Ron Paul states that he believes life begins at conception. And prior to this he says that there is no chemical, medical, legal evidence of a pregnancy when administering the treatment to stop the progression of possible conception.

I liken that to saying that you could justify murder by arguing that you have no reason to believe the guy didn't die of natural causes a split second before he was shot/stabbed/ran over. So while it would have been murder, you can't 100% prove due to lack of chemical, medical and legal evidence that he was expired mere seconds before I would have killed him. So at best I stabbed/shot/ran over a corpse that hadn't hit the ground yet.

And I agree, that does sound idiotic.

In the case of someone having a natural death right before something that would have otherwise killed them, they would argue that you intended to kill the guy and ended all chances of him being saved from the natural causes (heart attack, brain bleed, whatever) by your actions. It's more about the intent. If you are giving someone drugs/treatments to abort or prevent any possible pregnancy after the fact, your intent is clear. If you were pregnant you aborted it, if you were not the treatment was unnecessary....but the intent was still the same.

It's an argument basically boils down to: It's an abortion, only if you can prove they were pregnant. But there is no other reason to perform it besides the chance of pregnancy. So why is it not abortion/attempted abortion when the intent is there? And how can he say life begins at conception, but then do these procedures that are designed to prevent or end conceptions before they are legally, medically, and chemically provable?


It's a half joking, devil's advocate kind of argument. We don't give our ages from the day we were conceived, but we definitely begin life prior to our "birth day". So there needs to be a upper limit instated by law, and a general understanding that the doctors and clinics should make sure all information and choices are presented before doing anything permanent. It should definitely not be a spur of the moment choice, where a patient can walk in to a doctor with no previous discussion and say they want an abortion and have it carried out with no information to other options. Once presented with the options, and as long as it's under the legal time limit window, then I don't think anyone can say it should have been any other way than the people involved in it.

I don't technically have a problem with what Ron Paul is saying here, but he states something contrary to his own beliefs. 7 months is probably too far along, the kid could probably survive outside of the mother's body at that point. But if he believes birth begins at conception, doing things to prevent conception that ALSO ends conception and justifying it as no medical/legal/chemical proof of conception....that's just hypocritical.

That kind of grey area lurking to satiate the need for abortions, but still sticking to your hardline statements is chicken shit justification.

As far as I've read, the only things we know are the size of the planet and the distance from its star. We have no idea of the exact mass (other than that it's relatively low, which is a good thing), composition, atmosphere, or actual habitability of the planet, just that it's located in the "habitable zone". That is all!

So, no, we have no clue if there's water and since temperature is subject to other factors (the one's which we have no information on yet) besides solely the distance from its star, we can't really say it's life-sustaining either.

Just a heads-up, but if you quote someone they get an email telling them what you wrote instantly. So if you go back and edit your comment (as you did in this case) I still get to read your original remarks. Something to consider before hitting the submit button next time, if you didn't realize that. I'll respond to your original post:

Yeah, you used your sad little line once already. I know you think it makes you sound smart, but it just makes you seem like a tool. Care to actually engage in a debate with facts and opinions?

Yes, I would very much like to engage in a debate with facts and...opinions (can you have a debate without opinions)?

Regardless, I would also like to engage in a debate where people avoid logical fallacies rather than zealously pursuing them (for instance, that pesky ad hominem that so many people on the Sift have a hard time avoiding). And unfortunately I've learned that kind of debate just doesn't happen here often enough, which is why (as I said in my original post) I've moved on to debating on other forums where people are more interested in reasonable discussion than comment upvotes or making themselves feel clever by insulting others.

By the way, just in case you still don't understand the point of my original post, I suggest you read my answer to hpqp in which I spell it out clearly.

Or you can keep insulting me and continue proving my point.

Also, since you asked so nicely, here are some facts for you:

-- Hitchens in 2003 he wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule" (Vanity Fair, March issue)
-- In the same article, he mentions that some people need alcohol to avoid self-destructing even more quickly... self-referential? Who knows.
-- According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans moderate drinking is defined as no more than two drinks a day. Yet according to his own auto-biography Hitchens was drinking far in excess of that, including half a bottle of red wine (no less) at lunch alone in addition to his other drinks throughout the day.
-- As per hpqp's quote, he knew it was bad for him but continued to drink anyways... right up until the cancer. In fact I could find no information stating that he has given up drinking despite the cancer.

Of course, Hitchens denies that he's an alcoholic... but so do most alcoholics so I don't give that much credence.

In the end, though, whether or not he is an alcoholic is actually a moot point. The excessive drinking (if you prefer that term) has contributed to his cancer and an early grave. Thus it strikes me (and Shinyblurry) as peculiar to honor him with a toast. You disagree and that is your right. But instead of stating your case, you (and to be fair, a lot of others) came out flaming those who disagreed with you. And that is how we ended up having this conversation.

(P.S. I am indeed a tool. But I am a tool who carefully considers what his opponents say and can argue his point without having to insult the opposing side.)

In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
Wow, what an original and clever response.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Upvoted for both missing the point and proving it at the very same time.

In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/SDGundamX" title="member since March 2nd, 2007" class="profilelink">SDGundamX, Hitchens was not an alcoholic. It is possible to enjoy a few drinks without being an alcoholic.

As for your response to @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://fletch.videosift.com" title="member since August 9th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#FF4500">Fletch, I fail to see how he either missed or proved your point. All I can see is that he refuted your bullshit with facts and logic. But I guess those aren't really popular with your ilk.