Shiny's required to trust his human masters. He just regurgitates their wildly incongruous and self-referential errors. Any belief system that actively suppresses rational thought and "demonizes" anyone who doesn't toe the party line is anathema to intelligent society. All the worst atrocities committed in history are made by true believers like Shiny. If not first hand, then rationalized afterwards, which is just as bad in my opinion.

self referential proof again...MPD

...dysfunction, thy name is choggie....

...if it wasn't for the "lazy blind,...eye," as chingalera so choggielike calls it, he wouldn't be here, AGAIN AGAIN, to dribble and spew his verbosely inarticulate, self deluded, thread hijacking diatribes.

Is it not glaring, amazing, and ironic that so much of the vitriol choggie levies is unconsciously self-referential? Defining symptom of Multiple Profile Disorder.

If only you knew the slightest bit about philosophy. But no, you have an understanding of what your religion says, which is *THEOLOGY*, not philosophy.

Proof: You attempt to 'prove' that empiricism, a 'theory of knowledge' that was ancient when his religion was founded, and is still considered an important pillar in modern philosophy and theology, is "false" in a self-referential statement.

In the entirety of civilization, in EVERY SINGLE ERA of man, the greatest thinkers have been consumed with empiricism... but unfortunately they lacked SB's supreme insight... too bad SB wasn't born 2500 years ago... he could have ensured that Aristotle didn't waste his time.... OH, and he could have warned Jesus about that bastard Judas.

If only you knew the slightest bit about philosophy. But no, you have an understanding of what your religion says, which is *THEOLOGY*, not philosophy.

Proof: You attempt to 'prove' that empiricism, a 'theory of knowledge' that was ancient when his religion was founded, and is still considered an important pillar in modern philosophy and theology, is "false" in a self-referential statement.

In the entirety of civilization, in EVERY SINGLE ERA of man, the greatest thinkers have been consumed with empiricism... but unfortunately they lacked SB's supreme insight... too bad SB wasn't born 2500 years ago... he could have ensured that Aristotle didn't waste his time.... OH, and he could have warned Jesus about that bastard Judas.

>> ^A10anis:

Atheists cannot, even in a jocular fashion, be remotely compared to any cults like those of Koresh or Jones, they are the very opposite. In fact, atheists have no agenda other than freedom from the shackles of dark age myths. They do not want to have to confront religions/cults but have no choice when, daily, the destructive nature of them blight so many lives. If a "believer" wants to be a slave to some god and/or preacher, that's fine, they can do so in private. But they must keep their poisonous, controlling, brainwashing, tenets, out of our schools and government.


I believe the gray bloke is being snarky and referential, namely referring to the misogyny of the second two "preachers" and their hordes of MRA-holes (one would need to be up to date on the FtB/Reddit affairs). Condell must be in there for his perceived xenophobia.

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.

Pssst.... Dan Savage has linked to this video from his column.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/10/05/she-chose-to-be-gay

Self-referential loop.....

Tags for this video have been changed from 'self, referential, clock, clock, analog, digital' to 'self referential clock, timekeeper badge, congratulations' - edited by bareboards2

>> ^quantumushroom:

Citation: common sense, rare to endangered among leftists.
>> ^swedishfriend:
Quantummushroom: "Discounting the mentally ill"
That is a huge portion of the homeless! Discount them as well as the ones who have actually had a shitty life and you are only talking about a tiny percentage of the homeless. What is the point of talking about the homeless if you want to ignore most of the homeless in your discussion?
-Karl
PS. they should especially be allowed in a public park! Anyone should be allowed in any public space, right? Otherwise it wouldn't be public by definition, right?



Nice self-referential citation. You'll have forty doctorate degrees in less than four years with that strategy at work (assuming it works in reality, which tends to be liberal).

>> ^laura:

If I heard voices like that in my head I'd surely spend all my time hitting my head and yelling "shut up!"...


Indeed, how many of us have seen individuals on the street performing this very same described action? I am skeptical of its efficacy.(Euphemism)

How many of us have been sleep deprived, intoxicated, stressed, emotional, and thereby suffered mental impairment? What conscious control were we able to manifest? How long would it take to "forget" it wasn't normal owing to the onus of these and other attendant symptoms? Would the voices not become referentially familiar?

When I was studying such things it was referred to as a perceptual disorder.

Self-referential spam...need someone with some rank to start up a banfire.

Winstonfield: "[There are those who] use thier belief system as an excuse to behave like jackasses. ... In every group you have people lacking the character, spine, and decency to stop themselves from becoming prejudiced cads."
Then: "I think you want a video-sharing site that ISN'T dominated by vocal insecure people who happen to favor atheism and liberalism."

Well done. You get the medal for consecutive self-referential posts! I actually laughed out loud at this one.

Riffir is currently examined for faulty chemistry. None found.

All material access to Choggian Archive has been lost. Brother may freely access it mentally through Hive, but as Sepulv records, there is particular enhancement had by physically accessing any ancient material. The Earth rock does still exist for Brother wishing to find it (stellar coordinates 81862.9532.0526), but no relevant material has ever been found within it.

Extant Hive knowledge of Choggian life does provide Brother with insight into the nature of Earth and its "inhabitants" (self referential term does not translate meaningfully). Choggians believed themselves to be true individuals, in a way not dissimilar to how Brother understands elements of the Sisterhood. Riffir further records that Choggian elements individualized themselves and locality in a manner which even Sister elements would find hard to accomplish. Choggians mentally created a barrier between each individual and its locality. This form of isolation is well recorded in the Hive. But Choggians isolated much further. The locality itself was individualized into distinct individuals, whether considered sentient or not. And it is apparent from nearly all Choggian data that Choggians viewed everything outside the mental barrier as non-sentient.

Brother is aware that the such recording is meaningless. Riffir insists such mental constructs are indeed meaningful. Riffir is currently examined for faulty chemistry. None found.

Brother records that Choggian individuals perceived locality as distinct elements. Brother records that Choggian individuals perceived local distinct elements as sets of distinct elements. Riffir is currently examined for faulty chemistry. None found. Brother records that Choggian individuals perceived local distinct set elements as sets of local distinct elements. Riffir is currently examined for faulty chemistry. None found. Riffir is currently examined for faulty chemistry. None found. Riffir is currently examined for faulty chemistry. None found. Riffir local chemistry is dismantled.


to be continued

From Wikipedia: The Droste effect is a Dutch term for a specific kind of recursive picture, one that in heraldry is termed mise en abyme. An image exhibiting the Droste effect depicts a smaller version of itself in a place where a similar picture would realistically be expected to appear. This smaller version then depicts an even smaller version of itself in the same place, and so on. Only in theory could this go on forever; practically, it continues only as long as the resolution of the picture allows, which is relatively short, since each iteration exponentially reduces the picture's size. It is a visual example of a strange loop, a self-referential system.