I blame people for the current situations, are you not a person? I'm also complicit simply by existing.
Why would I need to expose my friends and past colleagues to a random internet denier ...firstly, subjecting them to you would likely end my friendship with many of them, secondly, you said clearly that you had already asked them ALL, so what gives? Were you just lying? (I know the answer to that, but I'm not sure if you'll admit it or not) If so, why should anyone believe anything you say?
I don't debate EVERY single person, only those I think are claiming things I see as incorrect. Debate at least informs each other of the others point of view, if not fostering re-analysis and possible changing of minds.
So, you would rather accept a few weatherman's opinions instead of most climate scientists when it comes to climate. Meteorology is the study of weather, not climate...or the dog, not the man....SQUIRREL! It doesn't mean they know nothing, but it does mean they aren't professionals in the climate and that others are far more specialized in the field and should be deferred to when discussing their field of expertise.
As I said clearly, I think the 'debate' is moot, as the process is too far along to do much about as I see it, and the few 'folks' that might make a difference (but not enough of one) don't listen to random people from the internet.

I'm not mad or pissed off at you comment , just thoughtfully responding to it.


whose society? You and I both live in the same society but have different points of view what is acceptable. So what gives anyone the right to make "their" point of view "more acceptable" than another? Why should the other point of view be drummed out of existence?


Just because I hold a different point of view on this site, it is viewed with more scrutiny and hence more likely to draw the wrong intentions of my thoughts then what my intentions were.

What I said above is not hate speech.

Ok. let me answer those points...and apologize for the wall of text in advance.
As I said, this was the first time I have ever tried (or even wanted to try) the ignore button, and I found it quite wanting. It's already not working at all, after one day.
It is not at all about a dissenting voice I'm trying to silence or deafen myself to, it's about his personal grating style and the apparent complete lack of self knowledge or examination coupled with vitriol at every chance. It's about trying to avoid people that search for any possible thing to attack, even when they must make mistaken assumptions to find something to be irate about, and appear to do so consistently with glee and zealotry. I welcome dissenting voices, listening to other points of view is the only way one can really evolve socially and intelligently, but when those points of view are always presented with vitriol and insult the message is often quickly lost.
I must ask, how do you come to the translations you have applied to his statements? For instance...
QUOTE:"As to some ' deliberate affectation designed to make me appear intellectual' You might want to check your own understanding of intellectual versus one's perception of self, I tend not to place much credence in the concept, overrated and ultimately soulless when used to assert one's own importance or place the herd over some one else.
Intelligence in the grand schemata, does not necessarily connote wisdom."

your TRANSLATION: i dont know everything and neither do you.
Where I read this as :'I know you are, but what am I?...I don't care about intelligence, intelligence isn't wisdom.' (implying-'and I'm wiser than thou').

If he could have recalled who he was responding to and the numerous personal discussions we have had, where he always ended up backing down and apologizing for his (feigned?) outrage at a mistaken assumption he had made, I probably wouldn't have lost all patience. Having to remind him every time we converse, and having him ignore it in public forums but admit it in private, was infuriatingly frustrating and I gave up. Perhaps that's my failing, but it is one that has raised it's head only once, with him, and I'm not the only one it's happened with (HE mentioned that the 'ignore' button was created in large part because of him, so he knows full well how he is perceived, no matter what his motive).
His clearly stated intention is rabble rousing and jabbing the sleeping sheeple, and I'm tired of the insulting prodding, especially since I'm a newtboy not a sheeple. I have read where he posted that, and I have seen that from him, but for some reason it seems you are telling me that if I say so I'm somehow making his point... that I'm (like ALL others) 'a sleeping idiot that believes only lies and shit, all my ideas are shit, and now that I disagreed with him I'm also a piece of shit'? Sorry, I don't understand that. Perhaps you were referring to a new point he made that I have not read.
My responses in this thread were NOT to Chingy himself (is this who people mean when talking about Choggie?)...but to others commenting about him. I agree, it is becoming a spectacle rather than substance...I feel like that was also the case with most of the threads he took over with walls of ranting anger. I do feel some responsibility for furthering that by engaging him, which is why I tried to ignore him, and things just went downhill from there fast! Now I can't ignore him if I want to read others' comments nearly anywhere on the sift because it seems he's there, everywhere, picking fights and then complaining he's bullied and being posted about instead of the video topic...and here I am doing it too.
F*CK!
The sift was such a nice place for discussion 6 months ago, with all points of view being well respected if not agreed with and few if any trolls beyond QM, and he was fairly respectful. What the hell happened?

I'm pretty sure you could do up the same ad from the other point of view. 'Leaders throughout America call Iran The Great Enemy and are plotting to... blah blah blah...'

A subtle thing I like in this, is that the Interviewee has a bigger window than the hosts - he's the important one in the discussion. On fox news, the host would be in the big window, while they would have two small windows with people of two different points of view - one that's the same as the host, so that they can overpower the other point of view.

You need to fix your goalposts son. To start off, the burden of proof is on those that seek to prohibit something. You could never show, for instance, that anything "won't help" anything else. That's asking for proof of a negative. It belies your profound misunderstanding of statistics. We had a nationwide assault weapons ban. It's efficacy was unimpressive. It certainly did not provide any conclusive evidence that the ban was effective which is where the burden should lie for restrictions on liberty.

There are also these things called "priors." For example: "An extremely small proportion of homicides are conducted using assault weapons. Thus, the maximal impact of their ban would similarly be small." If you want to ban anything it should be handguns, but I don't view that as consistent with the second amendment at all. You would (or at least should) need a constitutional amendment to pull that off.

Finally, I view homicide in general as a relatively small problem in comparison to other matters of public health and safety. That is if I look at numbers, as opposed to guessing at probabilities while I'm crying a river over news broadcasts designed to make me feel unsafe.

Sometimes being educated means considering other points of view. I'm a liberal and I don't own (or wish to own, or even really enjoy) guns. You have a fucking gun in your avatar.

Of course! They built Robocop!


>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Mr. Buckley said it best: Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.
That's point of VIEW, not poo.
Apparently, Breitbart and I are both fans of Robocop 2.

Of course you'd side with OCP.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Mr. Buckley said it best: Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.
That's point of VIEW, not poo.
Apparently, Breitbart and I are both fans of Robocop 2.

Of course you'd side with OCP.

Mr. Buckley said it best: Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.

That's point of VIEW, not poo.

Apparently, Breitbart and I are both fans of Robocop 2.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.

>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.



To use your metaphor, QM: I don't see shiny and his fundamentalist ilk as firefighters or concerned neighbors rushing to save anyone from flames. I see them as self-appointed building inspectors who refer to an ancient building code and attempt to demolish any house that isn't constructed according to their specifications.

Rock isn't flammable

"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!"

>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.


Generally speaking you are right. But in this case shiny is a supporter of the company which only builds houses out of highly inflammable compounds. And he may was at the crime scene, who knows.

It isn't something that can be sold, but told, because faith comes by hearing. It is what is being offered freely..that the free gift of God is eternal life. It cannot be earned, but it is given to all those who would receive it.

You're right, certainly no one wants to be reminded that they are a sinner, but they certainly are going to wish someone told them later on. I had no trouble accepting this truth, personally..it was clearly obvious to me that I had done things which were offensive to a holy God. Some people are too prideful to admit it, though their conscience tells them otherwise. Why not humble yourself and be cleansed, rather than carry that weight around everywhere you go? It will never leave you until you ask for forgiveness.

So, I appreciate your words. I am only trying to do what is right. The people hated what the Lord had to say, and still do, but He loves us anyway

Romans 5:8

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.

>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.



Generally speaking you are right. But in this case shiny is a supporter of the company which only builds houses out of highly inflammable compounds. And he may was at the crime scene, who knows.

Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.

Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.



>> ^petpeeved:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.

>> ^RFlagg:

Elevatorgate... Rebecca Watson (that Wiki link includes a summary of the elevator incident as well), founder of Skeptchick.com and semi-popular atheist blogger/vlogger, was a guest at the World Atheist Convention in Dublin. She gave a speech that apparently painted a misogynistic view within the atheist community and how women are under represented and the men treat the women who are there lowly. She was in the hotel bar with some friends after and at 4am announced she was going to bed. She got on the elevator and some guy followed her on. She says he cornered her and asked her if she wanted to come to his room for some coffee. She felt very uncomfortable and turned him down. She then made a blog post and video saying that you shouldn't approach a girl alone in an elevator and proposition her, and that was inappropriate behavior. From there elevatorgate blew up. Some accused her of over reacting, that it was just coffee, others pointed out it was "coffee" in his room at 4am. Many big names in the community took sides, and eventually even Richard Dawkins came out against her. It mostly fell across gender lines, many women noted how few women were at these conventions and pointed to the whole thing as an example of why, while many men said it was just coffee and one couldn't infer anything beyond that. There were notable exceptions on both sides, but the whole thing occupied the atheist blogsphere for a while.
If you look up atheist elevator incident on Google, you'll find lots of opinions and parodies of the incident. A large part of the community thought it was an over reaction, while the largest part of the community just got tired of it all. I personally was in the later category, but I do think it was inappropriate to ask her to his room, and she had a right to feel creeped out. Had he asked her to the hotel's restaurant/cafe and she reacted the way she did, then I would see the other point of view, but he asked her to his room. They didn't know each other, so I can see how that would be seen as odd... as a matter of fact I have a hard time seeing how anybody sees it as perfectly normal and okay, but a large part of the community did, or at least felt she over reacted to it (although it didn't appear she overreacted at first, it was after the community started reacting to it that the reactions started getting out of control on both sides).
Anyhow elevatorgate finally settled down, but still remains a hot button issue, hence the joke about elevators being a touchy subject at the end.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^RFlagg:
Loved and agreed with all of it. I also liked the "elevators are a touchy thing right now" at the end... a bit of an insider thing for the atheist community (and for the record I was largely on her side).

Do tell. No--really do.
I'm not familiar with the inside stuff.



Thanks. That's interesting.