I checked and apparently red meat is made from cow muscles. wow, who knew???

I've just been reading up on this a bit and it's sort of interesting. I don't think anyone is doing serious investigative work on this whole thing because I keep reading that these are either just local families who own cattle, or they're corporate entities.

Also the disturbing thing is that apparently these people owe the government a lot of money and they refuse to pay. In order to get out of being harassed they got a lot of Militia friends from other states to come armed and stand with them. So this doesn't seem to me like it's being handled very well at all, and it probably is something to do with local law enforcement not interested in causing trouble on a big local name.

Either way this hasn't become all that clear, and it always annoys me that I have to wait a long time before someone gets to the bottom of these things.

EDIT: I totally forgot to talk about the video which I couldn't get through because this guy is a moron. He cites the Federal Government not caring about a tortoise because we detonated tons of nuclear bombs in the desert. That was before the environment and conservation because a large issue, now it is and it isn't just about tortoises it's about the land as a whole. Land that if we destroy we don't get back for generations.

Also imagine if this became violent...just imagine how quickly helicopters would've destroyed everyone and everything in the desert. You cite that we test nuclear weapons yet you don't think we can take on a bunch of fat useless farmers that have AR-15s?

I can hardly listen to this idiot, I can certainly see how the federal government acted inappropriately (although I think I need more information) it's pretty much a common occurrence. But my god this smug little cunt just pisses me off the way he presents his arguments. I would take great pleasure beating him with a pipe until he drowned in his own blood.

My last thought on this is I hope it doesn't come of like I'm defending the government or their idiocy. If they're idiots which they usually are they don't get what they want. However I can't take stupid attacks on the government when there are so much better ones to be had. I love steak but there's too much of it, too many cows and our environment is being wrecked because of it. Red meat feeds cancer and destroys your health if you have too much of it, take it easy on the red meat. Global Warming is a serious issue, and apparently not one that InfoWars agrees with so as far as I'm concerned they're anti-science and anti-humanity. Fuck them.

What attracted you into conversation here is that the Sift is a de facto place for atheists to hang out. When you "speak your mind" about religion and atheism, there's two problems. The first is that since we are overwhelmingly non-believers, opinions against atheism and pro-religion are going to irritate a greater number of people, and so get the most attention. Our opinions against religion only offend you and maybe one or two other people ever, that I've seen. It's a numbers thing. Don't take it personally. The second is that, as I've mentioned already in this thread, you do come off supremely arrogant in your beliefs. Just saying, from our perspective. I'll turn it around to your perspective for a second. Consider these two sentences, a) "I consider the Bible to be fairy tales, and I don't understand why Christians people believe it's true." and b) "It's better to question the world rather than blindly accept a book of fairy tales." After which of these two sentences are you more likely to be able to continue reading for several more paragraphs, presumably all written in the same tone, with an open, clear, unangry mind? For most people —even atheists— the tone of the first sentence is preferable and more conducive to communication.

I'm not offended by your conversation, or your videos. In the past, I may have overreacted to insults, but they don't really bother me any longer. I am not sitting here enraged because some atheist suggested that God doesn't exist. I have heard just about every nasty thing anyone could possibly say about God, and then some. People have called me every sort of name that you could call someone. Even you can't resist putting in a dart here and there. That's just the way it is. If I let that bother me then I wouldn't be able to talk to anyone here.

If I've come off as arrogant, then that is unfortunate, because I don't feel superior to anyone here. I apologize to anyone who thinks that is the case. I am usually very direct in what I say, and I don't beat around the bush, and perhaps that has ruffled a few feathers. However, I always try to temper my speech with compassion and understanding. I don't think that is a fair characterization, and I think you are also ignoring the hyper sensitivity people have about their beliefs.

I've been using the sift since 06 or 07; the reason I finally signed up is because of the antitheistic bent the site had taken. Perhaps it was always there and I didn't really notice it. In any case, as a long time visitor here, I felt the site no longer represented me and I felt compelled to speak up for the other side of the argument. So I was not drawn to the sift because of atheism; I had already been using the sift for a long time.

I'll turn it back to the non-theist's perspective now. After listening to a cogent talk from Feynman explaining quite clearly why he would prefer to have no answer rather than possibly have a wrong answer, your first pitch over the plate was, "It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it", and then all rest of the stuff that followed that shows you didn't hear what he said at all. Feynman clearly doesn't prefer to "imagine that the answer is something else, because he doesn't like it." Then you used that as a launch pad for an assault on scientists in general through quotemining. I didn't read past the first paragraph. I moved straight down to see the reaction to your tone, and sure enough, it had started in earnest. I'd call that a failure in communication, unless you just wanted to vent, and maybe that day that's all the satisfaction you wanted. OK, but there you are. And you do this often enough, and people will see your avatar at the head of a comment somewhere else, and immediately their minds will shift into attack/defense mode, and your chances of communicating directly to their minds is almost zero – and they haven't even read a word yet.

Yet, someone who usually criticizes me agreed with me and said I had a good point. You say I didn't understand what Richard said, but apparently I understood it well enough to make a coherent point in opposition to what he said. What you're guilty of here is cherry picking. That sentence was part of an overall point and wasn't mean to be taken by itself.

In any case you say I failed, and perhaps I did in some ways, but not in the way you have asserted. You're right and you are wrong about what you've said here, but I get your overall point.

The fact is, since I've been here, this is the way people here have reacted to me. I don't get this reaction everywhere I go. Some of this is my fault, and some of it isn't. Either way I am not complaining. It is what it is. There is always room for improvement.

And to your comment about being invited. This place wasn't primarily designed for people to communicate opinions. It was designed for people to enjoy themselves while they procrastinate, feel a part of something, get some pseudo-community feelings going. There's no rule against giving any opinions here, nor against coming in large part to represent a certain opinion, but doing so runs against the main purpose of the place, organically defined by the intent of the people who come. This isn't an ideas discussion/debates forum with focus on arguing points to a conclusion. You can do that, but that's not the main purpose. What you tend to do here makes it more difficult for others to achieve their main purpose here, which is kicking up and not really thinking for an hour or two. And uh-oh, there's a comment from sb, killing the buzz. We could ignore it, but we just can't help reading what it says even though we already know it's almost certain to infuriate us with a relentless brand of reasoning that we do not understand.

Come on. People are not just here to relax, they are also here to promote their political, philosophical and (anti)religious ideologies. The sift loves red meat. People here love to express their opinions about what they love and what they hate, and they love to argue when anyone disagrees with them.

I get what you're saying. I could be more sensitive to how my comments will be perceived, and try to say things in a different way. I agree with you here. I'll keep it in mind.

In the end, however, the main purpose of this site is whatever the site operator purposes. What the site operator has said is that I am a valuable member of this community.

Fallacious arguments? Every time I point out a mistake, you invent a convenient new rule for understanding the Bible (or more likely you copy-paste what it says on some apologia clearinghouse website). I could literally find a quote that says, "oranges are black" and you'd justify it somehow. I just found a passage that gives two incompatible lineages from Joram to Joatham. And in a book that's supposed to be completely true, you excuse it by telling me the writers are taking artistic licence? WTF????? This isn't a poetry slam! It's the bloody word of God! If you claim everything in it is true, so much so that you've given up sex, condemn gay people, etc., then everything else in it *must* be literally true or you have no foundation for giving up sex or condemning gay people. Those could be metaphorical warnings about the lure of great pleasures in general. Either one of those things about Joram and Joatham written in the Bible is false, or anyone can point to any passage and call it optional, or poetry, or a style of writing, or just a metaphor. You can't have it both ways.

Now this is simply your ignorance talking. When I gave you my answer about the lineage in Matthew, I wasn't just pulling something out of a hat. Apparently you haven't heard of Chiastic structure:

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

It's not false, it is simply a writing style employed by Matthew to emphasize the lineage in a particular way. This is not some kind of desperate analysis to cover up a mistake, but is a well known style used in ancient literature. I'm not making excuses, or putting off something to metaphor; Matthew was definitely using Chiastic structure, and that is why that verse is symmetrical.

First, I'm saying the effects of personal prayer *can* be scientifically measured, so either your contention that God will not be tested is bunk, or self-prayer is really just meditation. You also didn't understand the set-up of the prayer-for-other test. In that scenario, there were real ill people in the hospitals, and they compared the outcomes for patients who had had others sincerely praying for them from a distance versus those who didn't. IOW, the sincere prayer happened. There has never been any measured health benefit for the ill people. They died off and recovered in equal numbers.

No, they can't be scientifically measured. You would never know during your test whether God was simply feeding you a certain kind of result. Think about it. God knows the entire time that you're trying to test for His existence outside of what He ordained (faith in Jesus Christ). His choice is either to give you results that will prove His existence outside of Christ or results that will make it ambiguous. What do you think He is going to do?

You keep saying that my position is one of cognitive dissonance. Look at yourself. You twist your mind into any shape you need for your dogma to hold true, never once truly considering the possibility that it's all in your head. You've said the words that you might be wrong, but you've never shown it's more than lip service. I've never seen you take a critical eye to your position on God and the Bible, despite the numerous opportunities I and others have given to you.

And this is exactly what Feynman's talking about when he says the scientific approach starts from the position that all hypotheses are wrong, then goes about trying to prove it through observation. Anything that's still standing afterwards is good scientific theory.

You're acting is if I have no evidence for my beliefs. If it was just a matter of believing the bible was true because I wanted to believe it, you might have a point. The reason I believe the bible is true because of personal revelation. I experience the presence of God in my daily life. It would be illogical for me to deny the existence of God based on the evidence I have received. I do not "twist my mind into any shape" to believe what I read in the bible. My worldview is internally consistent, and it is also rational. You may find it irrational because of your presuppositions, but that is because you reject the evidence I have receive apriori. To you there must always be some other explanation, and that is the way you interpret everything I say. You've already come to the conclusion that I am deluding myself, and everything I say you filter through that conclusion. Rather than letting the evidence interpret the conclusion, you are interpreting the evidence through the conclusion.

Religion, on the other hand, starts from the assuming the conclusion that God and the Bible are real, and any observational facts that don't line up must themselves be wrong facts, no matter how well documented they are. And when those facts can no longer be denied, then the Bible passages in question are suddenly no longer considered to have literal meaning, and now have only a "metaphorical" meaning, or must be understood from a different perspective.

If every word in the Bible is subject to this convenient wishy-washy fanciful method of interpretation, then it's a lousy foundation for a system of faith. You cannot follow anything that you can change the meaning of by arbitrarily saying, "That part is meant to be understood non-literally." The Bible, as it stands now, is either a 100% true book that we humans are incapable of understanding; OR a book that we are meant to learn from that also has lots of loopholes in it. It cannot be both, not as it stands now. The whole Bible should be re-written such that what's left in it is literal unmistakable unfudgeable truth. I think it would be a very, very short book, or, a much longer book filled with qualifications, something along these lines:

I'm well aware that many Christians have compromised with the world and reinterpreted the bible to reflect worldly wisdom, but I'm not one of them. Though not everything in the bible (like the song of solomon for instance) could, or should be taken literally, I believe it contains the literal history of planet Earth. As I've explained in other threads, I didn't always believe that. I assumed where science said it was right, the bible was wrong. It was only when I questioned that and investigated the evidence that I found it was the other way around. I believe the bible is true not only because of revelation, but because of the evidence, not in spite of it. You have unfairly mischaracterized me, because I am the last person you will talk to who will turn the bible into a metaphor to avoid the facts.

Otherwise, as you seem to fear about secular morality, the Bible itself could be interpreted to mean absolutely anything by anyone at any time, if they thought hard enough about it.

I don't fear that, I know that. You're absolutely right, you could make the bible say anything you want to. People do it all the time. It's only a literal reading that makes any sense. Even atheists know that:

destroy adam and eve and original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God and take away the meaning of His death

-american atheist association

>> ^messenger:

stuff

The choices today are bad and worse, although I think that Romney has proven experience leading, creating wealth, and governing, whereas Obama..well, we've seen what that looks like. It's clear this country needs to go in a new direction..I wish it wouldn't have to be Romney, but I don't think America can take another 4 years of Obama and survive.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I don't see why Romney should release his tax records. The Obama campaign is simply fishing for more ammunition to paint Romney as a rich elitist, so in effect they are calling for Romney to produce a club so that they can beat him over the head with it. So I don't really see a compelling reason for Romney to do it.
Personally, I'm an independent. I would ask liberals though, if you could stop clamoring for the red meat the DNC is throwing to you for a second and look at the world objectively, how is it that you can come away with any other opinion than that the Obama presidency is a major disappointment? Why would you vote for him again? Can you articulate anything convincing? Obama campaigned in 2008 on hope and change, as a messianic figure who would fundamentally transform this country and fix everything. He said if he didn't it would be a one term proposition. Obviously none of that happened and the country is in even worse shape, and bitterly divided along political, class and racial lines. It has never been more divisive. Instead of hope and change we get slash and burn. Instead of a principled reformer we get a bitter partisan playing dirty politics; ie, a typical politician. Why in the world shouldn't it be a one term proposition? He isn't the man he said he was by any measure, and basically he has run this country into the ground. Don't you have a sense of self preservation?

Quite a number of "liberals" on the sift and elsewhere have stated openly that Obama is a disappointment.
But the real disappointment is that no matter how bad he is, he's still an order of magnitude better than any candidate the republicans put forward.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I don't see why Romney should release his tax records. The Obama campaign is simply fishing for more ammunition to paint Romney as a rich elitist, so in effect they are calling for Romney to produce a club so that they can beat him over the head with it. So I don't really see a compelling reason for Romney to do it.
Personally, I'm an independent. I would ask liberals though, if you could stop clamoring for the red meat the DNC is throwing to you for a second and look at the world objectively, how is it that you can come away with any other opinion than that the Obama presidency is a major disappointment? Why would you vote for him again? Can you articulate anything convincing? Obama campaigned in 2008 on hope and change, as a messianic figure who would fundamentally transform this country and fix everything. He said if he didn't it would be a one term proposition. Obviously none of that happened and the country is in even worse shape, and bitterly divided along political, class and racial lines. It has never been more divisive. Instead of hope and change we get slash and burn. Instead of a principled reformer we get a bitter partisan playing dirty politics; ie, a typical politician. Why in the world shouldn't it be a one term proposition? He isn't the man he said he was by any measure, and basically he has run this country into the ground. Don't you have a sense of self preservation?


Quite a number of "liberals" on the sift and elsewhere have stated openly that Obama is a disappointment.

But the real disappointment is that no matter how bad he is, he's still an order of magnitude better than any candidate the republicans put forward.

I don't see why Romney should release his tax records. The Obama campaign is simply fishing for more ammunition to paint Romney as a rich elitist, so in effect they are calling for Romney to produce a club so that they can beat him over the head with it. So I don't really see a compelling reason for Romney to do it.

Personally, I'm an independent. I would ask liberals though, if you could stop clamoring for the red meat the DNC is throwing to you for a second and look at the world objectively, how is it that you can come away with any other opinion than that the Obama presidency is a major disappointment? Why would you vote for him again? Can you articulate anything convincing? Obama campaigned in 2008 on hope and change, as a messianic figure who would fundamentally transform this country and fix everything. He said if he didn't it would be a one term proposition. Obviously none of that happened and the country is in even worse shape, and bitterly divided along political, class and racial lines. It has never been more divisive. Instead of hope and change we get slash and burn. Instead of a principled reformer we get a bitter partisan playing dirty politics; ie, a typical politician. Why in the world shouldn't it be a one term proposition? He isn't the man he said he was by any measure, and basically he has run this country into the ground. Don't you have a sense of self preservation?

I can immediately tell this is propaganda by the simple statement that THC causes physical withdrawal symptoms, I'm sorry but that is complete and utter BS. I have used pot and and stopped using it many times in my life and it's no different than eating hamburgers one day and not eating hamburgers another day, ya I might get a craving for a burger sometimes but it doesn't cause physical pain when I don't indulge that craving. Pot is the same way. I'm guilty of experimenting with many drugs over the years and I can say with certainty that Pot is absolutely harmless in terms on how addicting it is. It's no different that coffee, cokes, red meat, or fatty foods. And even caffeine causes massive headaches when you stop using it. And I would much rather smoke a joint than drink alchohol or smoke cigarettes. Cigarettes have something like 200+ toxic chemicals(Pot has just one THC) in them and they DO cause physical withdrawal symptoms, and so does alchohol(DTs can actually kill a person). THC causes nothing even remotely like withdrawal symptoms, and people like Dr. Drew who I'm sure has never used a drug in his life couldn't possibly know that. I forgive them their ignorance but not for spreading lies pushed out by government owned agencies whose only agenda is to make money.

>> ^messenger:

That Yes or No part was silly. A politician can't make promises like that, and to conclude that the answer must be yes is unfair. I'm glad Cenk went back to his YouTube-only format. Reading scripts to a camera is not his way.
That said, he still has some stupid arguments with guests on his YT show. Case in point: http://videosift.com/video/TYT-pratt-defends-zimmerman-and-cenk-loses-
it. IMO that interview was much worse. I wish he wouldn't do that. It takes away his credibility.>> ^Sotto_Voce:
On his internet show, Cenk used to have good debates with conservatives because he would remain calm and allow them to speak while still putting forward his case forcefully. You really got a sense that he was interested in having a conversation rather than using his guest as a foil for his own argument. See his interview of John Ziegler, for instance.
Now it seems like he's decided that the way to make it on cable TV is to turn into a liberal version of O'Reilly, and that's sad. Take, for instance, his ridiculous "ANSWER THE QUESTION! YES OR NO!" tactic. I hate that. There are often answers that are more complicated than just a straight yes or a no, and to demand that they be simplified just encourages a dumbing down of the discourse. I'm on Cenk's side on the substance here, but his style was really annoying.



Jesus, that is a horrible interview. But it looks like that's from his Current TV show, so it's consistent with my "TV is ruining Cenk" hypothesis. I never thought he was a particularly profound analyst, but AFAIK he wasn't always this ridiculous. I really think he's deliberately going down the route of garnering attention by providing red meat for the base. Maybe that is the way to be successful on cable news, but it's still pathetic.

Honestly, are there any good hosts on cable news? Maddow is pretty smart, but her constant snark is a little grating. Lawrence O'Donnell does the whole outrage thing a bit too much, although he does it infinitely better than Cenk. I like the format of Chris Hayes' new show a lot, but he really comes across as a smarmy tool. The best I can think of is Fareed Zakaria. Anderson Cooper is decent too, but he covers too much fluff.

I gave up red meat last year. I still miss a good burger every now and then, but I think it's better for me in the long...

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^westy:
-Good DNA
( just a dice roll if you are to born with or without any of the shit)
-Healthy food - preferably low calorie diet and diverse lots of frute vegetables , fish and small amounts of red meat.

-Daily low impact exercises

-Low stress environment ( probably due to wealth)

- low polution enviromnt thorgh life ( sum one living in a city or in a high povity area is unlikely to last to old old age)
-support infrastructure , family , friends , community

Those are the factors that allow for long life Its quite simple but the fact is you don't control allot of them so might as well just kill your self and be done with it.

I honestly think it could be up to 80% DNA.


lol probably although people in general are living longer due to healthy low stress living and good medical care but yah to be as fit as she is at that age she probably rolled the lucky dice.

There have been some interesting documentaries about age and how some islands of people live longer because there bodies have evolved due to the environment and food sources around them and that happens to coincidently benefit them for old age.

>> ^westy:

-Good DNA
( just a dice roll if you are to born with or without any of the shit)
-Healthy food - preferably low calorie diet and diverse lots of frute vegetables , fish and small amounts of red meat.

-Daily low impact exercises

-Low stress environment ( probably due to wealth)

- low polution enviromnt thorgh life ( sum one living in a city or in a high povity area is unlikely to last to old old age)
-support infrastructure , family , friends , community

Those are the factors that allow for long life Its quite simple but the fact is you don't control allot of them so might as well just kill your self and be done with it.


I honestly think it could be up to 80% DNA.

-Good DNA
( just a dice roll if you are to born with or without any of the shit)

-Healthy food - preferably low calorie diet and diverse lots of frute vegetables , fish and small amounts of red meat.


-Daily low impact exercises


-Low stress environment ( probably due to wealth)


- low polution enviromnt thorgh life ( sum one living in a city or in a high povity area is unlikely to last to old old age)

-support infrastructure , family , friends , community


Those are the factors that allow for long life Its quite simple but the fact is you don't control allot of them so might as well just kill your self and be done with it.

This woman is nothin' but a damn communist socialist nazi atheist abortionist, with her vegetable-growing tree-hugging scheme!! Go buy a fucking burger you red!!! Meat is what keeps Uncle Sam in business!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, listening to it myself, I gotta say I'm in total agreement with Frum on this one.

To make my own personal observation, even to a pro-Hayek ideologue, don't you notice that he doesn't actually propose any economic theory at all? Not a hint of "I think if X happens, Y will result"? The only things he says are the usual political demagoguery of "if government does something, we're all doomed!"

The bumper-sticker version of Keynes's theory is that if a recession comes about from a slump in demand, government should try to step in and create demand by spending money. The Hayek answer given here is essentially "we don't understand economics," with the full meaning being "so when a major depression or recession hits, just bend over and take it like a man."

Keynes essentially says that economics is worthless as a science if it can't tell us what to do in crises like the Great Depression. In fact, that's the meaning of his "In the long run we are all dead" quote, when read in proper context:

But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again.

As for the constant accusations of Keynes being a central planner, this too is based on ignorance. Read Brad DeLong, and this except from Keynes's General Theory.

For the most part, I gotta say that even in a video produced by people who clearly side with Hayek, Keynes comes away looking more rational, and more vindicated by history, while all Hayek does is sputter right-wing red meat, without presenting any rationale or evidence to support his views.

Don't know what you're so afraid of.....there is indeed something to see. The US ambassador to China letting himself being videoed at an anti-government protest. Not smart.

And this guy is supposed to be presidential material. Perhaps it's red meat for his potential repub constituents.