Some smartass keeps sneaking espresso into the water.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'halloween, ghostbuster, costume, backflip, police' to 'halloween, ghostbuster, smartass, costume, backflip, police, rcmp, mounties' - edited by calvados

>> ^rottenseed:

Yea...and when the queue of parents is over, there will be a line of parents waiting to kick him in the nuts.>> ^raverman:
As a parent (and if not fake) I'm sure there is a que of parents also lining up to kick him in the nuts.



HAH!
*smartass

There was a discussion about this video here http://www.fark.com/comments/7173068/Father-is-shocked-when-his-smartass-son-decides-to-deliberately-not-follow-his-instructions?cpp=1

I can hear the booth director in my head:

"Camera 2.....................camera 4....camera 2....smartass....."

@shinyblurry

I cannot prove to you that this has happened to me

My point exactly.
Therefore to call it 'evidence' rather than 'subjective experience' is an at best misleading if not false claim, as the term 'evidence' used in conversation with others generally refers to something provable to others.
To say something like "I had a subjective experience that is evidence to me" would be fine, as it has a buffer around the term to denote that 'evidence' in this case is in no way substantial or transferable to others, i.e. not evidence to others and can be discarded.. and any line of poetic words can not change this.

If you understand the above point (one you made yourself), then you may agree that those who 'require evidence' (regardless of what some guy poetically said), can not genuinely accept your use of the word 'evidence' as having the same value as what now has to be refereed to as 'actual evidence' for clarity after the term has been devalued to host a non-transferable personal experience (i.e. not evidence to others), and therefore swapping out this term for a personal 'reason to believe' is not only required for more clearly followable terminology within a conversation but is more accurate in general discourse of 2 opposing views.

Re Jesus said, Jesus said etc

The notion that one would give another great tools/resources like logical processing, rational thought and critical thinking and then put forward a reward of 'subjective experience based evidence' only achievable by those that disregarded such 'gifts' enough so as to have a chance of achieving this form of evidence is absurd.
For this irony to be the foundation to salvation, God would have to be a smartass of an asshole. This is not a sane, righteous or respectable approach given that most humans adopt their parents religious beliefs and are therefore largely disqualified given the amount of pressure some religious people put on family to remain loyal to that which they were born into.

A point that they still have a chance of finding your God has truth to it despite whether your God is actually real as we can't discount the subjective realness of delusions, but to make such a claim is to discount the difficulties and almost impossibilities in some cases due to lack of legitimate opportunity.


If you are that close to being an atheist, what is the practical difference? To maintain a hairbreadth of uncertainty so as to hold the "intellectual honesty" card is actually intellectually dishonest I think, no offense. I don't think being certain and being a hairsbreadth away from certainty is really much different.

No offense taken as you've missed the point. Firstly there is a difference as i do not claim to 'know' that God doesn't exist. I claim to have 'reasons to believe' that it is unlikely. Knowledge of mental deficiencies, emotions, subjective experiences, experience recognition mental softwares and the way humans make mass assumptions to quickly gain degrees of understandings of any/every situation alone take me right up to that hairsbreadth away point. Whereby it can take time and effort explaining to people the difference between agnostic (don't know/care), agnostic-atheist (don't know, doubt it) and atheist (believe not), I'm happy to wear the tag as a generality in non-specific and non-in-depth discussions.

However I'm aware that a God identical to your claims 'could' be hiding in the shadows just outside of human detection and actual evidence as the religious coincidentally claim to those who request proof (yet then in the same breath can state 'but I have personal evidence'.. yes, seems convenient and unlikely).
Just like I'm aware that there 'could' be a 700 story tall pink dragon that farts rainbows named Trevor that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist inside both of my kidneys without being split into 2 parts..
Or someone 'could' prefer their beliefs enough to unknowingly and automatically do mental acrobats around anything that would disrupt them including acknowledging that their position is unsubstantiated outside of a mind that wants to believe (this is in fact what can occur when someone suffers from a delusion).
Debating possibilities is a waste of time, whereas debating probabilities is where you might actually get some results or at least supportable reason to belive.


understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive

The arguments relating to 'we don't know everything yet' is not a basis in which to claim 'X is just as, if not more so, likely to be true'. Claims require their own 'evidences' to support them. Pushing ideas onto people requires 'transferable evidence' and just because there is a question mark at a stage whereby most other aspects of a theory hold true enough to be accurately predicted during tests, does not reflect on another theory being more likely but may indeed reflect on another theory as being less likely.


Even if scientists understood this perfectly, what does that actually prove?

I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe not requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds).
Although we haven't figured everything out yet, we've only had about 400 years worth of good studying and scientific thinking on the matter of a 13.7 billion year old case... how much can you honestly expect us to know definitively when so much of our combined time goes towards supporting notions that can't actually be proved?


Did you know that scientists must make fundamental assumptions, such as a uniformity in nature, to even do science? Can you answer why there is a uniformity in nature?

Yes I know that humans must make assumptions so as to figure things out, in fact it was one of the if not THE main focus of my previous post.
Could you ask your question if their wasn't uniformity in nature? No. The fact that there is, is what allows for those that can question it to arise. Our mere being here says nothing as to whether there is a God, in fact nothing in science thus far (to my knowledge) says anything as to whether there IS a God, however some things do say as to whether or not a God is required.


Scripture says differently

Scripture (your one and others) say a lot of things, some things vaguely, somethings specifically, and some things contradictorily (Google 'bible contradictions' for examples), but most of all, it says things poetically somewhat like a manipulating salesman whose product you're not allowed to touch, until you've handed over the money. Scripture also doesn't say things as well as some writers over the years could have, but hey it's only the word of God.. I'm interested in things outside of scripture, things that are testable, things that are comparable to an alternate source than where they came from.


For instance, God is the giver of life. He gives everyone a body and soul, air to breathe, water to drink, and He even upholds the atoms that comprise your being. Life is only possible because of what God is doing for you in this very moment, and every moment.

So, if this is true, why is it wrong for God to take it away, at the time of His choosing?

Cheap shot: proof please. I require it in order to respond to the statement & question.
Na just kidding I don't expect any proof for these claims, just like I can't provide you any proof about Trevor.. * whispers: because Trever doesn't actually exists *. In these cases we'll just dismiss each others unsubstantiated claims until the other provides either evidence or acceptable reason to believe said claims.


Let's say someone is doing something terribly evil, and causing many people to greatly suffer. The evil he is doing is going to cause many people to miss the boat on what God had planned for them. Is God wrong for judging this person and taking away his life to serve the greater good? Now lets say this is a nation, which is causing many other nations to suffer in the same way. Is God wrong for judging that nation? Wouldn't God actually be evil for ignoring it and allowing people to suffer needlessly? How about if the entire world becomes corrupt? Wouldn't God be evil for allowing it to continue that way?

Conflict.

Christian claim: God gave humans free will and allows them to use it whereby they will be judged in the afterlife.
Christian claim: God may affect the world in your benefit if you pray (or as your hypothetical, affect the world against you if you're naughty).
Christian claim: God exists outside of detection.
Christian claim: God can do anything.
Christian claim: God.
Christian claim: God is mysterious / we can not understand the will of God
Christian claim: God likes X, God doesn't like Y.

Or to summarize: God exists outside of known existence and has the ability to create and destroy anything without exception.
This is the result of human intelligence evolving to the point of getting one of our psychological survival drives (hope) to an indisputable peak of performance.

My point is that believers over time have given themselves so much wiggle room, when we start talking about 'why God X, why not Y, can God Z' etc, then we enter the realm of imaginative flexibility where the desperate and delusional can simply change the variables of what they want to use regardless of the conflicts, and ignore any logical positions by getting caught up on their preferred ideological technicalities while rejecting other physical or metal technicalities or proofs.


I think you are suffering from a lack of imagination. Here is the being that has created everything you have ever loved, appreciated, been in awe of, who is intimately familiar with your comings and goings, all of your thoughts and feelings. He gave you your family, your friends, your talents, your purposes. He understands you better than you understand yourself.

I have to say 'proof please' again. The words of 1 source (the Bible) are not good enough, evidence requires testability and multiple sources of confirmation. Too much imagination and you can slip away from reality.

Would have replied sooner, but was busy and then D3 launched =D

Video sketch? Is that the new buzzword for a mockup?

I'm not being a smartass (yet). I haven't heard this term before.

I used to be a smartass doctor who lookalike midget like him, but then I took... a hairdrier....to the knee?

Hah, smartass.

Thanks.
>> ^jonny:

Hey Congratulations! I just discovered this news. Let's see - wedding was ninths months ago, so I suppose the little one is about 2 months old now? Must be really cute.

Don't be such a smartass, Siftbot...

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Do you believe that the demand for cars would have decreased if the big 3 went under? If so, please explain how and why.
I think, if the big 3 tanked, people who would have bought those cars would still need cars and would have bought cars from other manufacturers. That means increased business for those other manufacturers which means they place more demand on the material manufacturers, the parts suppliers, etc. Some of that demand would have manifested overseas, but I believe much of it would have gone to the same businesses that Ford, Chrysler and GM use. After all, as I said above, there's lots of other manufacturers that do assembly here and it's easier and cheaper to have your suppliers nearby.
No, like you say it's mostly a supply-driven story, not demand-driven. My point is that dismantling the Detroit-centered auto manufacturing infrastructure would be a huge shock to the American economy.

Like you say, eventually the economy would readjust, but even in a good economy it'd take a long time for it to adjust to a shock of that size. In a time where the financial markets had just gone into a crisis of historic proportions, it might've taken more than a decade.

A decade in which that circular flow is moving more slowly, dragged down by all the human and industrial capital that we leave idle as workers in Detroit look for new jobs, and while we wait for the prices of Toyotas and Hondas and BMW's to rise in response to the decline in supply, then wait for those price increases to build up as excess capital to the point where those companies decide to invest in opening new factories to meet the demand.

In the long run, the circular flow of our economy would eventually get back up to the rate it was at before, but in the long run we are all dead.

Or instead we could spot 'em 50 billion and avoid taking that kind of hit. Unless of course, you think there are inherent insurmountable problems with Chrysler and GM that can't be fixed with new management and some debt forgiveness?
>> ^xxovercastxx:

All the independent analyses that I read back in 2008 concluded that the cost of the bailouts vs letting the big 3 tank was close to a wash.

I'm not sure if the analyses you looked at were talking about the overall macroeconomic effects, but I bet not. I bet they just looked at "will it increase the government's debt load?" That's all most investor analyses do in situations like this.

The analysis I'm talking about would be comparing GDP forecasts with the bailout vs. without.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
There's also a cost to other businesses that comes with these sorts of bailouts that is rarely mentioned. I used to work at a small property insurance company. When the economy got rough, they played things smart. They minimized their risk, invested heavily and were one of the only companies of their kind to maintain a profit through the whole debacle. AIG, on the other hand, bet on high risk business and lost fortunes. They got a government care package and put themselves back together and now, as a result, are destroying the insurance market. My old company is struggling to stay in business (next year is their 100th anniversary) and AIG is swimming in ill gotten money.

The smartass in me wants to say "what's the cost?" After all, both companies made a profit. What's wrong with that?

But seriously, you're talking about "moral hazard". Believe me, that's not some topic nobody talks about, it's what right-wing economists and business journalists scream as loud as they can whenever there's talk about government stepping in to stave off major disruptions in the economy.

The my answer is that bailouts shouldn't be no strings attached, like the bailout of AIG was. The management of the companies that get rescued should lose their jobs, and be stripped of all their personal wealth. Depending on their actions, maybe tossed in jail too.

That way the value of company itself is preserved (and not liquidated), while there's a strong disincentive for the management to make a business plan that centers on expectations of being bailed out if the shit hits the fan.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

So the question I pose (and I know we can only speculate on the answer) is what effect have the bailouts had on Toyota, Honda, etc? Or do we not care because they don't employ as many Americans as the domestics?


Since this comment is approaching an epic length already, I'm just gonna say that it wasn't really about foreign vs. domestic ownership, but about minimizing the number of years we stay below trend in GDP during a severe recession. If you want to view it as a region vs. region dispute, it was also about keeping the perfectly good Detroit manufacturing cluster from being needlessly dismantled and rebuilt elsewhere.

It was a sincere question. The serious answer is that the theory of gravity is not simple and is not easy to prove.

Yet you accept it without question.

Likewise, maybe climate science, which is also not simple and not easy to prove, may have more to offer than you think. There is alot more known about clouds, to use your example, than you seem to appreciate. >> ^coolhund:

>> ^longde:
General Relativity is simple?
>> ^coolhund:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Gravity is a theory too, STFU.
kthanksbai.
>> ^coolhund:
It is NOWHERE near being a fact. Its a fucking theory and one that is very wobbly at that if you actually open your eyes objectively.


Yeah, a theory thats easily proven because its very simple.

Trying to be a smartass now, huh? That only helps my cause.
You know exactly what I meant.
Well, I see, ignorance as usual.

>> ^longde:

General Relativity is simple?
>> ^coolhund:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Gravity is a theory too, STFU.
kthanksbai.
>> ^coolhund:
It is NOWHERE near being a fact. Its a fucking theory and one that is very wobbly at that if you actually open your eyes objectively.


Yeah, a theory thats easily proven because its very simple.


Trying to be a smartass now, huh? That only helps my cause.
You know exactly what I meant.
Well, I see, ignorance as usual. Im just waiting for you to get out the drawers.

You guys can be smartasses all you want, but it is sad that you're willing to extrapolate conclusions you're posting.

-----

1:30 to 2:11 --- He speaks about the Right to own property privately. He says the UN will not protect those rights.

4:13 to 4:37 -- The UN will not let us practice religion in the same way.

6:29 to end -- Describes lack of need for UN to talk to other countries. The UN is taking our sovereignty by acting as the middle man. 54 representatives vote for a measure to withdraw from the UN.
---------------------

By golly he must have wrote those things about blacks and AIDS!

I'd really like to draw the same conclusions but I really dont know what source material you all are watching... this is far from paranoia

PS: Why are do you mention Lew Rockwell at all, and ignore Murray Rothbard and Eric Dondero?

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say."

Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters

Eric Dondero was a staffer who was fired.
http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies

In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard218.html


You guys are starting to look silly and I'm starting to wonder just how hard you need to try to prove something that you say is so obvious. You know, like the clip of GW Bush giving the camera the middle finger. There has to be an actual slip up, not just your own interpretation of someone elses interpretation of something someone read.

WHO'S THE GRAMMAR NAZI NOW, SMARTASS?!!!